Skip to main content

Periprosthetic joint infection in aseptic total hip arthroplasty revision



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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1


  1. 1.

    Reina N, Delaunay C, Chiron P, Ramdane N, Hamadouche M (2013) Infection as a cause of primary total hip arthroplasty revision and its predictive factors. Orthop Traumatol: Surg Res 99:555–561.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Delaunay C, Hamadouche M, Girard J, Duhamel A (2013) What are the causes for failures of primary hip arthroplasties in France? Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:3863–3869.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE (2004) Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med 351:1645–1654.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Cazanave C, Greenwood-Quaintance KE, Hanssen AD, Karau MJ, Schmidt SM, Gomez Urena EO et al (2013) Rapid molecular microbiologic diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. J Clin Microbiol 51:2280–2287.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Rak M, KavčIč M, Trebše R, CőR A (2016) Detection of bacteria with molecular methods in prosthetic joint infection: sonication fluid better than periprosthetic tissue. Acta Orthop 87:339–345.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Safir O, Lakstein D, Gross AE (2011) Dislocation and infection after revision total hip arthroplasty: comparison between the first and multiply revised total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 26:1170–1175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Klouche S, Leonard P, Zeller V, Lhotellier L, Graff W, Leclerc P et al (2012) Infected total hip arthroplasty revision: one- or two-stage procedure? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98:144–150.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

  10. 10.

    Saleh A, Guirguis A, Klika AK, Johnson L, Higuera CA, Barsoum WK (2014) Unexpected positive intraoperative cultures in aseptic revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 29:2181–2186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Dupont JA (1986) Significance of operative cultures in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 211:122–127

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Barrack RL, Aggarwal A, Burnett RSJ, Clohisy JC, Ghanem E, Sharkey P et al (2007) The fate of the unexpected positive intraoperative cultures after revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 22:94–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Wee AT, Morrey BF, Sanchez-Sotelo J (2013) The fate of elbows with unexpected positive intraoperative cultures during revision elbow arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:109–116.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 30:1051–1053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Font-Vizcarra L, Zumbado A, García S, Bosch J, Mensa J, Soriano A (2011) Relationship between haematoma in femoral neck fractures contamination and early postoperative prosthetic joint infection. Injury 42:200–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Evans PE (1981) Septic dislocation of the hip after internal fixation of trochanteric fractures. Injury 13:185–187

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    DeHaan A, Huff T, Schabel K, Doung Y-C, Hayden J, Barnes P (2013) Multiple cultures and extended incubation for hip and knee arthroplasty revision: impact on clinical care. J Arthroplast 28:59–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Davis N, Curry A, Gambhir AK, Panigrahi H, Walker CR, Wilkins EG et al (1999) Intraoperative bacterial contamination in operations for joint replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 81:886–889

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Abdelaziz H, Zahar A, Lausmann C, Gehrke T, Fickenscher H, Suero EM et al (2018) High bacterial contamination rate of electrocautery tips during total hip and knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 42:755–760.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Kliushin NM, Ermakov AM, Malkova TA (2017) Chronic periprosthetic hip infection: micro-organisms responsible for infection and re-infection. Int Orthop 41:1131–1137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Rothenberg AC, Wilson AE, Hayes JP, O’Malley MJ, Klatt BA (2017) Sonication of arthroplasty implants improves accuracy of periprosthetic joint infection cultures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475:1827–1836.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Padgett DE, Silverman A, Sachjowicz F, Simpson RB, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (1995) Efficacy of intraoperative cultures obtained during revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 10:420–426.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Ji B, Zhang X, Xu B, Ren J, Guo W, Mu W et al (2018) The fate of immunocompromised patients in the treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection: a single-centre experience. Int Orthop 42:487–498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mathieu Severyns.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Renard, G., Laffosse, JM., Tibbo, M. et al. Periprosthetic joint infection in aseptic total hip arthroplasty revision . International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 44, 735–741 (2020).

Download citation


  • Revision total hip arthroplasty
  • Intra–operative culture
  • Periprosthetic joint infection
  • Hip dislocation
  • Aseptic revision arthroplasty