Periprosthetic joint infection in aseptic total hip arthroplasty revision
- 51 Downloads
There is no consensus regarding systematic screening for infection in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The rationale for systematic intra–operative samples is to increase the sensitivity of latent infections detection, which may require specific treatment. However, the incidence of occult infection in revision THAs is not precisely known. As such, the aim of the study was to evaluate the incidence of occult infection in presumed aseptic revision THAs and identify associated risk factors.
Bacteriological samples from 523 aseptic THA revisions performed for five years were analyzed. Revisions performed for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) or clinical suspicion of PJI were excluded. Microbiological cultures were performed using tissue samples in 505 cases (97%), synovial fluid in blood culture vials in 158 (30%), and in dry tubes in 263 (50%). Implants were sent for sonication in 12 cases (2.6%). The mean number of microbiological samples per patient was 3.6 (range, 1–15). Histology samples were collected for 300 patients (57%).
The incidence of occult infection was 7% (36 cases) and contamination 8% (42 cases). Among occult infections, the primary reasons for revision were dislocation (42%), aseptic loosening (25%), fracture (19%), and others (14%). The infection rate in the dislocation group was significantly higher than that of other reasons for revision (p < 0.001). Among the patients determined with PJI, the revision THA was performed less than a year after primary in 19 (53%).
The incidence of occult PJI justifies systematic intraoperative sampling. A short time between primary arthroplasty and revision or an early postoperative dislocation is a factor to suspect infections.
KeywordsRevision total hip arthroplasty Intra–operative culture Periprosthetic joint infection Hip dislocation Aseptic revision arthroplasty
- 4.Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF, Bauer TW, Springer BD, Della Valle CJ et al (2011) New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:2992–2994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2102-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Osmon DR, Berbari EF, Berendt AR, Lew D, Zimmerli W, Steckelberg JM et al (2013) Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 56:e1–e25. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cis803
- 11.Dupont JA (1986) Significance of operative cultures in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 211:122–127Google Scholar
- 14.Berend KR, Lombardi AV, Adams JB (2007) Unexpected positive intraoperative cultures and gram stain in revision total hip arthroplasty for presumed aseptic failure. Orthopedics 30:1051–1053Google Scholar
- 15.de Jong L, Klem TM a L, Kuijper TM, Roukema GR (2017) Factors affecting the rate of surgical site infection in patients after hemiarthroplasty of the hip following a fracture of the neck of the femur. Bone Joint J 99-B:1088–1094. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B8.BJJ-2016-1119.R1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Mühlhofer HML, Knebel C, Pohlig F, Feihl S, Harrasser N, Schauwecker J et al (2018) Synovial aspiration and serological testing in two-stage revision arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection: evaluation before reconstruction with a mean follow-up of twenty seven months. Int Orthop 42:265–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3700-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Boot W, Moojen DJF, Visser E, Lehr AM, de WTS, van HG et al (2015) Missed low-grade infection in suspected aseptic loosening has no consequences for the survival of total hip arthroplasty: 173 patients followed for 6 to 9 years. Acta Orthop 86:678–683. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2015.1086942 Google Scholar
- 26.Bauer S, Bouldouyre M-A, Oufella A, Palmari P, Bakir R, Fabreguettes A et al (2012) Impact of a multidisciplinary staff meeting on the quality of antibiotherapy prescription for bone and joint infections in orthopedic surgery. Med Mal Infect 42:603–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medmal.2012.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar