Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

What are the risk factors for post-operative infection after hip hemiarthroplasty? Systematic review of literature

  • Review Article
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Femoral neck fractures are frequent in the elderly population and lead to high morbidity and mortality. Hemiarthroplasty is an established surgical procedure for displaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures. Post-operative infection is frequent and is potentially devastating for the patient and the healthcare services. The goal of this study was to identify the risk factors of infection after hemiarthroplasty and help adapt our surgical practice.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed in July 2015 by two authors using the MedLine, PubMed and Cochrane databases. We used the MeSH keywords “hip hemiarthroplasty” AND “infection” to identify risk factors and methods of prevention for surgical site infection after hemiarthroplasty. Following the search, two authors independently performed the first stage based on titles and abstracts.

Results

Thirty-seven articles were selected. Review and analysis of the references was performed to find other articles of interest. Thirteen articles were selected to analyse. According to literature, the surgical site infection (SSI) rate after hip hemiarthroplasty (HHA) is between 1.7 and 7.3 %. Pre-operative comorbidities (obesity, liver disease, advanced age), operative conditions (junior surgeon, uncemented stems, time of surgery) and post-operative management (length of hospitalisation, haematoma, prolonged wound drainage and two urinary catheterisations) were identified as risk factors of surgical site infection. Authors describe conditions to decrease the incidence of these complications and underline the importance of “a specialised hip team” that provides fast care and helps decrease the duration of hospitalisation.

Conclusions

Careful patient management for hemiarthroplasty is vital and may decrease the incidence of surgical site infection, which is associated with high morbidity and high procedure cost. Our review suggests that there are specific correctable risk factors for SSIs after HHA. Being able to identify these risk factors leads to better care because of SSI prevention in patients undergoing HHAs after femoral neck fractures. To improve the outcomes, some methods of prevention of surgical site infection are available: before, during and after the operation.

Study design

Review of literature. Level of evidence: IV

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schmidt AH, Swiontkowski MF (2002) Femoral neck fractures. Orthop Clin N Am 33(1):97–111, viii

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nather A, Seow CS, Iau P, Chan A (1995) Morbidity and mortality for elderly patients with fractured neck of femur treated by hemiarthroplasty. Injury 26(3):187–190

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sullivan NP, Hughes AW, Halliday RL, Ward AL, Chesser TJ (2015) Early complications following cemented modular hip hemiarthroplasty. Open Orthop J 9:15–19. doi:10.2174/1874325001509010015

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Sprowson AP, Jensen CD, Gupta S, Parsons N, Murty AN, Jones SM, Inman D, Reed MR (2013) The effect of high dose antibiotic impregnated cement on rate of surgical site infection after hip hemiarthroplasty for fractured neck of femur: a protocol for a double-blind quasi randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14:356. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-356

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Gao H, Liu Z, Xing D, Gong M (2012) Which is the best alternative for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly?: A meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(6):1782–1791. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2250-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Einhorn TA, Thabane L, Schemitsch EH, Koval KJ, Frihagen F, Poolman RW, Tetsworth K, Guerra-Farfan E, Madden K, Sprague S, Guyatt G, Investigators H (2015) Hip fracture evaluation with alternatives of total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty (HEALTH): protocol for a multicentre randomised trial. BMJ Open 5(2):e006263. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006263

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Liu Y, Tao X, Wang P, Zhang Z, Zhang W, Qi Q (2014) Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing unipolar with bipolar hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral-neck fractures. Int Orthop 38(8):1691–1696. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2355-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Schneppendahl J, Grassmann JP, Petrov V, Bottner F, Korbl B, Hakimi M, Betsch M, Windolf J, Wild M (2012) Decreasing mortality after femoral neck fracture treated with bipolar hemiarthroplasty during the last twenty years. Int Orthop 36(10):2021–2026. doi:10.1007/s00264-012-1600-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Varley J, Parker MJ (2004) Stability of hip hemiarthroplasties. Int Orthop 28(5):274–277. doi:10.1007/s00264-004-0572-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Clohisy JC, Calvert G, Tull F, McDonald D, Maloney WJ (2004) Reasons for revision hip surgery: a retrospective review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 429:188–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Alazzawi S, Sprenger De Rover WB, Brown J, Davis B (2012) The conversion rate of bipolar hemiarthroplasty after a hip fracture to a total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg 4(2):117–120. doi:10.4055/cios.2012.4.2.117

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Gjertsen JE, Lie SA, Vinje T, Engesaeter LB, Hallan G, Matre K, Furnes O (2012) More re-operations after uncemented than cemented hemiarthroplasty used in the treatment of displaced fractures of the femoral neck: an observational study of 11,116 hemiarthroplasties from a national register. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 94(8):1113–1119. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B8.29155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fichman SG, Makinen TJ, Vincent A, Lozano B, Safir O, Kuzyk PR (2015) Complications following conversion of a hip hemiarthroplasty to a total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-2827-2

    Google Scholar 

  14. Burgers PT, Van Lieshout EM, Verhelst J, Dawson I, de Rijcke PA (2014) Implementing a clinical pathway for hip fractures; effects on hospital length of stay and complication rates in five hundred and twenty six patients. Int Orthop 38(5):1045–1050. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2218-5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Warwick D, Hubble M, Sarris I, Strange J (1998) Revision of failed hemiarthroplasty for fractures at the hip. Int Orthop 22(3):165–168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Tidermark J, Ponzer S, Svensson O, Soderqvist A, Tornkvist H (2003) Internal fixation compared with total hip replacement for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly. A randomised, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 85(3):380–388

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Rogmark C, Johnell O (2006) Primary arthroplasty is better than internal fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures: a meta-analysis of 14 randomized studies with 2,289 patients. Acta Orthop 77(3):359–367. doi:10.1080/17453670610046262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Edwards C, Counsell A, Boulton C, Moran CG (2008) Early infection after hip fracture surgery: risk factors, costs and outcome. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 90(6):770–777. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.90B6.20194

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Blewitt N, Mortimore S (1992) Outcome of dislocation after hemiarthroplasty for fractured neck of the femur. Injury 23(5):320–322

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cordero-Ampuero J, de Dios M (2010) What are the risk factors for infection in hemiarthroplasties and total hip arthroplasties? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(12):3268–3277. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1411-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Gaynes RP (1997) Surveillance of nosocomial infections: a fundamental ingredient for quality. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 18(7):475–478

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ridgeway S, Wilson J, Charlet A, Kafatos G, Pearson A, Coello R (2005) Infection of the surgical site after arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 87(6):844–850. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.87B6.15121

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP (2007) How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 455:23–29. doi:10.1097/BLO.0b013e31802c9098

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD (2003) Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(1):1–3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dale H, Skramm I, Lower HL, Eriksen HM, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Skjeldestad FE, Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB (2011) Infection after primary hip arthroplasty: a comparison of 3 Norwegian health registers. Acta Orthop 82(6):646–654. doi:10.3109/17453674.2011.636671

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Jameson SS, Jensen CD, Elson DW, Johnson A, Nachtsheim C, Rangan A, Muller SD, Reed MR (2013) Cemented versus cementless hemiarthroplasty for intracapsular neck of femur fracture—a comparison of 60,848 matched patients using national data. Injury 44(6):730–734. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2012.10.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Leonardsson O, Karrholm J, Akesson K, Garellick G, Rogmark C (2012) Higher risk of reoperation for bipolar and uncemented hemiarthroplasty. Acta Orthop 83(5):459–466. doi:10.3109/17453674.2012.727076

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Lau AC, Neo GH, Lee HC (2014) Risk factors of surgical site infections in hip hemiarthroplasty: a single-institution experience over nine years. Singap Med J 55(10):535–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cumming D, Parker MJ (2007) Urinary catheterisation and deep wound infection after hip fracture surgery. Int Orthop 31(4):483–485. doi:10.1007/s00264-006-0227-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Johnson B, Starks I, Bancroft G, Roberts PJ (2012) The effect of care bundle development on surgical site infection after hemiarthroplasty: an 8-year review. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 72(5):1375–1379. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e318245267c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Acklin YP, Widmer AF, Renner RM, Frei R, Gross T (2011) Unexpectedly increased rate of surgical site infections following implant surgery for hip fractures: problem solution with the bundle approach. Injury 42(2):209–216. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2010.09.039

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Duckworth AD, Phillips SA, Stone O, Moran M, Breusch SJ, Biant LC (2012) Deep infection after hip fracture surgery: predictors of early mortality. Injury 43(7):1182–1186. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2012.03.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Harrison T, Robinson P, Cook A, Parker MJ (2012) Factors affecting the incidence of deep wound infection after hip fracture surgery. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 94(2):237–240. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B1.27683

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Shah SN, Wainess RM, Karunakar MA (2005) Hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture in the elderly surgeon and hospital volume-related outcomes. J Arthroplasty 20(4):503–508. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2004.03.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Frihagen F, Madsen JE, Aksnes E, Bakken HN, Maehlum T, Walloe A, Nordsletten L (2007) Comparison of re-operation rates following primary and secondary hemiarthroplasty of the hip. Injury 38(7):815–819. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2006.09.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lora-Tamayo J, Euba G, Ribera A, Murillo O, Pedrero S, Garcia-Somoza D, Pujol M, Cabo X, Ariza J (2013) Infected hip hemiarthroplasties and total hip arthroplasties: differential findings and prognosis. J Infect 67(6):536–544. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2013.07.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. del Toro MD, Nieto I, Guerrero F, Corzo J, del Arco A, Palomino J, Nuno E, Lomas JM, Natera C, Fajardo JM, Delgado J, Torres-Tortosa M, Romero A, Martin-Rico P, Muniain MA, Rodriguez-Bano J, group P-SR (2014) Are hip hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty infections different entities? The importance of hip fractures. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 33(8):1439–1448. doi:10.1007/s10096-014-2091-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Haley RW (1985) Surveillance by objective: a new priority-directed approach to the control of nosocomial infections. The National Foundation for Infectious Diseases lecture. Am J Infect Control 13(2):78–89

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Southwell-Keely JP, Russo RR, March L, Cumming R, Cameron I, Brnabic AJ (2004) Antibiotic prophylaxis in hip fracture surgery: a metaanalysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 419:179–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR (1999) Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control 27(2):97–132, quiz 133-134; discussion 196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Leong G, Wilson J, Charlett A (2006) Duration of operation as a risk factor for surgical site infection: comparison of English and US data. J Hosp Infect 63(3):255–262. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2006.02.007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Rotter R (2012) Hip fractures—surgical experience reduces the infection rate. Z Orthop Unfall 150(2):135

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Parker MJ, Pryor GA, Myles JW (1994) The value of a special surgical team in preventing complications in the treatment of hip fractures. Int Orthop 18(3):184–188

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Cooke EM, Coello R, Sedgwick J, Ward V, Wilson J, Charlett A, Ward B, Pearson A (2000) A national surveillance scheme for hospital associated infections in England. Team of the Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme. J Hosp Infect 46(1):1–3. doi:10.1053/jhin.2000.0801

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Trebse R, Pisot V, Trampuz A (2005) Treatment of infected retained implants. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 87(2):249–256

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Byren I, Bejon P, Atkins BL, Angus B, Masters S, McLardy-Smith P, Gundle R, Berendt A (2009) One hundred and twelve infected arthroplasties treated with ‘DAIR’ (debridement, antibiotics and implant retention): antibiotic duration and outcome. J Antimicrob Chemother 63(6):1264–1271. doi:10.1093/jac/dkp107

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Toms AD, Davidson D, Masri BA, Duncan CP (2006) The management of peri-prosthetic infection in total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 88(2):149–155. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.88B2.17058

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Fitzgerald RH Jr (1995) Infected total hip arthroplasty: diagnosis and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 3(5):249–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Senthi S, Munro JT, Pitto RP (2011) Infection in total hip replacement: meta-analysis. Int Orthop 35(2):253–260. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-1144-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Bori G, Munoz-Mahamud E, Cune J, Gallart X, Fuster D, Soriano A (2014) One-stage revision arthroplasty using cementless stem for infected hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 29(5):1076–1081. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.11.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Yoo JJ, Kwon YS, Koo KH, Yoon KS, Kim YM, Kim HJ (2009) One-stage cementless revision arthroplasty for infected hip replacements. Int Orthop 33(5):1195–1201. doi:10.1007/s00264-008-0640-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ilchmann T, Zimmerli W, Ochsner PE, Kessler B, Zwicky L, Graber P, Clauss M (2015) One-stage revision of infected hip arthroplasty: outcome of 39 consecutive hips. Int Orthop. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-2833-4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service Orthopédie et Traumatologie du CHU de Nantes, 1 Place Alexis Ricordeau, 44000, Nantes, France

    Thibaut Noailles, Kévin Brulefert, Antoine Chalopin, Pierre Marie Longis & François Gouin

Authors
  1. Thibaut Noailles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kévin Brulefert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antoine Chalopin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pierre Marie Longis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. François Gouin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thibaut Noailles.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Noailles, T., Brulefert, K., Chalopin, A. et al. What are the risk factors for post-operative infection after hip hemiarthroplasty? Systematic review of literature. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 40, 1843–1848 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3033-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3033-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation