Utilization of Debridement,Antibiotics, and Implant Retention for Infection After Total Joint Arthroplasty Over a Decade in the United States

BackgroundReported clinical outcomes have varied for debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) and little is known regarding trends in utilization. We sought to evaluate the rate of DAIR utilization for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) over a decade and clinical factors associated with these trends.MethodsA retrospective study of primary TKAs and THAs was performed using Medicare data from 2005 to 2014 using the PearlDiver database platform. Current Procedural Technology and International Classification of Diseases Ninth Edition codes identified patients who underwent a surgical revision for PJI, whether revision was a DAIR, as well as associated clinical factors including timing from index arthroplasty.ResultsThe proportion of revision TKAs and THAs performed using DAIR was 27% and 12% across all years, respectively. This proportion varied by year for TKAs and THAs with a linear trend toward increasing relative use of DAIR estimated at 1.4% and 0.9% per year (P < .001; P < .001). DAIR for TKA and THA performed within 90 days increased at a faster rate, 3.4% and 2.1% per year (P < .001; P < .001). Trends over time in TKA DAIRs showed an association with Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI), 0-5 group increasing at 2.0% per year (P = .03) and patients >85 years (P = .04).ConclusionThe proportion of revision arthroplasty cases for PJI managed with DAIR has been increasing over time in the United States, with the most substantial increase seen <90 days from index arthroplasty. Age, gender, and ECI had a minimal association with this trend, except in the TKA population >85 years and in those with a very low ECI score.     

Increased Synovial Inflammatory Markers in Aseptic Total Hip Arthroplasty Dislocation

BackgroundIn cases of total hip arthroplasty (THA) dislocation, a synovial fluid aspiration is often performed to evaluate for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). It is currently unclear how aseptic dislocation of a THA influences synovial fluid white blood cell (WBC) count and polymorphonuclear percentage (PMN%). The primary aim of this study is to investigate the influence of THA dislocation on synovial WBC count and PMN%.MethodsTwenty-eight patients who underwent a synovial aspiration of a THA between 2014 and 2019 were identified and enrolled in our case-control study. Patients with an aseptic THA dislocation and synovial hip aspiration were matched against patients without dislocation, patients undergoing hip aspiration before aseptic THA revision surgery, and patients undergoing hip aspiration before septic THA revision surgery.ResultsSynovial WBC count was significantly increased in the dislocation vs aseptic THA revision group (P = .015), as well as between the septic revision group vs dislocation and aseptic THA revision group (both P < .001). The PMN% did not differ significantly between the dislocation and aseptic revision groups (P = .294). Mean C-reactive protein values were 12.4 ± 14.9 mg/dL in THA dislocation, 24.1 ± 37.7 mg/dL in THA without infection compared to 85.7 ± 84.9 mg/dL in THA infection group (P < .001).ConclusionThis study shows that THA dislocation has a significant impact on synovial WBC count in joint aspiration. Our data suggest that in the setting of THA dislocation, synovial WBC and PMN% may not be the best method to evaluate for PJI. Further research should be performed to establish new thresholds for these synovial inflammatory markers in the setting of THA dislocation and PJI.Level of evidenceLevel III; retrospective trial.     

Outcome of Debridement,Antibiotics, and Implant Retention With Modular Component Exchange in Acute Culture-Negative Periprosthetic Joint Infections

BackgroundModular component exchange and culture-directed antibiotic treatment is routinely employed for acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, as many as 7%-23% of PJIs have been reported to yield negative culture results. The efficacy of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) with modular component exchange in the setting of acute culture negative PJI remains largely unknown. The aim of our study is to evaluate the outcomes of DAIR with modular component exchange in acute culture-positive and culture-negative PJI.MethodsA total of 149 consecutive patients with primary total joint replacements (90 total knee arthroplasties and 59 total hip arthroplasties) who underwent DAIR with modular component exchange for acute PJI with at least 3 years of follow-up were evaluated: (1) 46 culture-negative PJI patients and (2) 103 culture-positive PJI patients. Reinfection and aseptic revision rates along with complication rates were compared.ResultsThe reinfection rate for DAIR in acute culture-negative PJI was 13.0% compared to 19.4% in culture-positive PJI (P = .48). Mean survival time from reinfection between culture-negative (7.7 ± 0.4 years) and culture-positive (7.4 ± 0.3 years) PJI groups did not differ significantly (P = .40). Aseptic revision rates were 8.7% and 4.9% (P = .46), respectively, with loosening being the primary reason for implant failure in both cohorts.ConclusionsDespite lack of an identifying organism to guide postoperative antibiotic therapy, DAIR with modular component exchange for acute culture-negative PJI was associated with similar reinfection rates compared to acute culture-positive PJI, suggesting that culture negativity may not be a contraindication to DAIR in patients with acute PJI.     

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Intrawound Vancomycin in Total Hip and Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Call for a Prospective Randomized Trial

BackgroundTopical intrawound vancomycin has been used extensively in spine surgery to decrease surgical site infections. However, the efficacy of intrawound vancomycin in total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to prevent periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has not been established.MethodsThe PubMed and MEDLINE databases were searched to identify studies utilizing intrawound vancomycin in primary and revision THA and TKA. Data for postoperative infection were pooled using random effect models with results reported as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals. Studies were weighted by the inverse variance of their effect estimates.ResultsOf the 91 studies identified, 6 low-quality retrospective studies (level III) were pooled for further analysis. A total of 3298 patients were assessed, 1801 of which were treated with intrawound vancomycin. Overall, patients who received vancomycin had a decreased rate of PJI (OR 0.2530, P < .0001). When analyzed separately, TKA patients and THA patients who received intrawound vancomycin had lower rates of PJI (OR 0.3467, P = .0005 and OR 0.3672, P = .0072, respectively). Pooled primary TKA and THA patients receiving vancomycin saw the rate of PJI decrease (OR 0.4435, P = .0046). Pooled revision TKA and THA patients saw a similar decrease in infection rates (OR 0.2818, P = .0013). No apparent publication bias was observed; however, the results from this analysis are limited by the low quality of evidence and inherent potential for bias.ConclusionIntrawound vancomycin may reduce the risk of PJI in primary and revision TKA and THA. However, only low-quality evidence exists, highlighting the need for randomized controlled trials before broad adoption of this practice can be recommended given the potential implications of widespread use of vancomycin in hip and knee arthroplasty.     

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Intrawound Vancomycin in Total Hip and Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Continued Call for a Prospective Randomized Trial

BackgroundPeriprosthetic joint injection (PJI) is a rare, but life-altering complication of total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Though intrawound vancomycin powder (IVP) has been studied in other orthopedic subspecialties, its efficacy and safety in TJA has not been established.MethodsPubMed and MEDLINE databases were used to identify studies utilizing IVP in primary and revision total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA). Postoperative PJI data were pooled using random effect models with results reported as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Studies were weighted by the inverse variance of their effect estimates.ResultsOverall, 16 of the 1871 studies identified were pooled for final analysis, yielding 33,731 patients totally. Of these, 17 164 received IVP. In aggregate, patients who received IVP had a decreased rate of PJI (OR 0.46, P < .05). Separately, TKA and THA patients who received IVP had lower rates of PJI (OR 0.41, P < .05 and OR 0.45, P < .05, respectively). Aggregate analysis of primary TKA and THA patients also revealed a decreased PJI rate (OR 0.44, P < .05). Pooled revision TKA and THA patients had a similar decrease in PJI rates (OR 0.30, P < .05). Although no publication bias was appreciated, these findings are limited by the low-quality evidence available.ConclusionWhile IVP may reduce the risk of PJI in primary and revision TJA, its widespread use cannot be recommended until higher-quality data, such as that obtained from randomized control trials, are available. This study underscores the continued need for more rigorous studies before general adoption of this practice by arthroplasty surgeons.     

Risk of Prosthetic Joint Infection Increases Following Early Aseptic Revision Surgery of Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundIt is important to identify risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total joint arthroplasty in order to mitigate the substantial social and economic burden. The objective of this study is to evaluate early aseptic revision surgery as a potential risk factor for PJI following total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsPatients who underwent primary THA or TKA with early aseptic revision were identified in 2 national insurance databases. Control groups of patients who did not undergo revision were identified and matched 10:1 to study patients. Rates of PJI at 1 and 2 years postoperatively following revision surgery were calculated and compared to controls using a logistic regression analysis.ResultsIn total, 328 Medicare and 222 Humana patients undergoing aseptic revision THA within 1 year of index THA were found to have significantly increased risk of PJI at 1 year (5.49% vs 0.91%, odds ratio [OR] 5.61, P < .001 for Medicare; 7.21% vs 0.68%, OR 11.34, P < .001 for Humana) and 2 years (5.79% vs 1.10%, OR 4.79, P < .001 for Medicare; 8.11% vs 1.04%, OR 9.05, P < .001 for Humana). Similarly for TKA, 190 Medicare and 226 Humana patients who underwent aseptic revision TKA within 1 year were found to have significantly higher rates of PJI at 1 year (6.48% vs 1.16%, OR 7.69, P < .001 for Medicare; 6.19% vs 1.28%, OR 4.89, P < .001 for Humana) and 2 years (8.42% vs 1.58%, OR 6.57, P < .001 for Medicare; 7.08% vs 1.50%, OR 4.50, P < .001 for Humana).ConclusionEarly aseptic revision surgery following THA and TKA is associated with significantly increased risks of subsequent PJI within 2 years.     

Is There Harm in Debridement,Antibiotics, and Implant Retention Versus Two-Stage Revision in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Knee Infection? Experiences Within a Large US Health Care System

BackgroundWhen faced with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty, the treating surgeon must determine whether 2-stage revision or “liner exchange,” aka debridement, antibiotics, exchange of the modular polyethylene liner, and retention of fixed implants (DAIR), offers the best balance of infection eradication versus treatment morbidity. We sought to determine septic re-revision risk following DAIR compared to initial 2-stage revision.MethodsWe conducted a cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente's total joint replacement registry. Primary total knee arthroplasty patients who went on to have a PJI treated by DAIR or 2-stage revision were included (2005-2018). Propensity score–weighted Cox regression was used to evaluate risk for septic re-revision.ResultsIn total, 1,410 PJIs were included, 1,000 (70.9%) treated with DAIR. Applying propensity score weights, patients undergoing DAIR had a higher risk for septic re-revision compared to initial 2-stage procedures (hazard ratio 3.09, 95% CI 2.22-4.42). Of DAIR procedures, 150 failed (15%) and went on to subsequent 2-stage revision (DAIR-F). When compared to patients undergoing an initial 2-stage revision, we failed to observe a difference in septic re-revision risk following DAIR-F (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.58-2.12).ConclusionAlthough DAIR had a higher risk of septic re-revision, we failed to observe a difference in risk following DAIR-F when compared to those who initially underwent 2-stage revision. Functional outcome, patient, and organism factors are important to consider when discussing PJI management options.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Elevated ESR/CRP Ratio Is Associated With Reinfection After Debridement,Antibiotics, and Implant Retention in Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infections

BackgroundRatios of established inflammatory markers, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP), have been used for diagnostic purposes in the surgical field; however, the ESR:CRP ratio (ECR) has not been evaluated as a marker for predicting infection resolution in patients with periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ECR in predicting postoperative reinfection in patients who underwent debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR).MethodsThis is a retrospective review of 179 consecutive patients who underwent DAIR revision total joint arthroplasty for PJI. Patients were stratified by acuity of their infection: acute PJI, acute hematogenous PJI, and chronic PJI. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated to evaluate ECR as diagnostic marker for predicting postoperative reinfection in patients who underwent DAIR.ResultsStatistically significant differences in ECR were found in patients who underwent DAIR revision total joint arthroplasty for chronic infection (1.23 vs 2.33; P = .04). There was no significant difference in ECR in patients who underwent DAIR for acute infection (P = .70) and acute hematogenous infection (P = .56). In patients who underwent DAIR for chronic PJI, ECR demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 75% and 84%, respectively, for the prediction of postoperative reinfection, which was significantly higher than that of ESR (sensitivity, 67%; specificity, 47%; P < .001) and CRP (sensitivity, 50%; specificity, 26%; P < .001).ConclusionElevated ECR was associated with an increased reinfection risk in patients who underwent DAIR for chronic PJI, suggesting that preoperative ECR may be a useful predictor to identify patients at increased risk of reinfection after DAIR for chronic PJIs.     

Acetabular Component Position and the Risk of Dislocation Following Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Matched Cohort Analysis

Background

Recently, the importance of acetabular component positioning in the Lewinnek “safe zone” in preventing prosthetic dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been questioned. The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of acetabular components within the Lewinnek safe zone between primary and revision THAs that have sustained a dislocation vs matched controls without a dislocation event.

How Does a “Dry Tap” Impact the Accuracy of Preoperative Aspiration Results in Predicting Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection?

BackgroundPeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is challenging to diagnose. We aimed to evaluate the impact of dry taps requiring saline lavage during preoperative intra-articular hip aspiration on the accuracy of diagnosing PJI before revision surgery.MethodsA retrospective review was conducted for THA patients with suspected PJI who received an image-guided hip aspiration from May 2016 to February 2020. Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) diagnostic criteria for PJI were compared between patients who had dry tap (DT) vs successful tap (ST). Sensitivity and specificity of synovial markers were compared between the DT and ST groups. Concordance between preoperative and intraoperative cultures was determined for the 2 groups.ResultsIn total, 335 THA patients met inclusion criteria. A greater proportion of patients in the ST group met MSIS criteria preoperatively (30.2% vs 8.3%, P < .001). Patients in the ST group had higher rates of revision for PJI (28.4% vs 17.5%, P = .026) and for any indication (48.4% vs 36.7%, P = .039). MSIS synovial white blood cell count thresholds were more sensitive in the ST group (90.0% vs 66.7%). There was no difference in culture concordance (67.9% vs 65.9%, P = .709), though the DT group had a higher rate of negative preoperative cultures followed by positive intraoperative cultures (85.7% vs 41.1%, P = .047).ConclusionOur results indicate that approximately one third of patients have dry hip aspiration, and in these patients cultures are less predictive of intraoperative findings. This suggests that surgeons considering potential PJI after THA should apply extra scrutiny when interpreting negative results in patients who require saline lavage for hip joint aspiration.     

Failed Debridement and Implant Retention Does Not Compromise the Success of Subsequent Staged Revision in Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundPeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the leading cause of early revisions after total knee arthroplasty. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) procedures are often the initial treatment for PJI. However, there is concern that failed DAIR undermines the future success of revision procedures. This study aims to investigate the impact of DAIR on the success of subsequent staged revisions for PJI.MethodsA multicenter retrospective review was performed over a 15-year period. Treatment success was defined as implant retention without the use of long-term suppressive antibiotics. This was compared between patients who underwent a staged revision as the first procedure for PJI (staged-only) and patients who failed DAIR before staged revision (F-DAIR). Competing risk survival analysis was performed to compare the 2 groups and considered for patient demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, organism type, body mass index, age of prosthesis, and duration of symptoms.ResultsOf 291 eligible patients, 63 underwent staged revision and 228 underwent DAIR as the first procedure for PJI. Of the 228 DAIR patients, 75 failed DAIR and underwent subsequent staged revision (F-DAIR). At mean follow-up of 6.2 years, the success rate was 72% in the F-DAIR group and 81% in the staged-only group. On survival analysis, there was no significant difference in subdistribution hazard ratio comparing the probability of failure (implant retention) in the 2 treatments groups (subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.72; 95% confidence interval 0.32-1.61; P = .42).ConclusionThis study suggested that a previously failed DAIR does not compromise the success rate of a subsequent staged revision.     

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Aseptically Failed Metal-On-Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty

BackgroundWhile common, studies assessing outcomes of failed metal-on-metal (MoM) resurfacings converted to total hip arthroplasties (THAs) are limited. We determined the outcomes following revision THA of aseptic MoM hip resurfacings.MethodsBetween 2000 and 2019, we identified 52 revision THAs for failed MoM hip resurfacings through our total joint registry. Mean age was 55 years, 42% were women, and mean body mass index was 28 kg/m². Adverse local tissue response led to THA in 67% of the cases. The most common revision articulation was metal-on-cross-linked or ceramic-on-cross-linked polyethylene (71%). Median head size was 36 mm. The acetabular component was retained in 21% and 28% used dual-mobility constructs. The mean follow-up was 6 years (range, 2-12 years).ResultsThe 5-year survivorships free of any re-revision or reoperation were 89% and 85%, respectively. The primary cause of re-revision (6) was dislocation (4). The 5-year cumulative probability of dislocation was 19% and was 13% in those patients treated with dual-mobility constructs versus 22% in those treated with standard articulations (P = .58). No dislocations occurred in THAs with retained acetabular components and dual-mobility constructs versus a 5-year cumulative probability of dislocation of 25% in those with revised acetabular components and standard articulations (P = .24).ConclusionRevision THAs for aseptically failed MoM hip resurfacings yielded a 5-year survivorship free of re-revision of 89%. The main reason for failure was dislocation, which was reduced, but not statistically significantly, when a dual-mobility construct was used, especially if the acetabular component was retained.Level of EvidenceIV.     

Dislocation after the first and multiple revision total hip arthroplasty: comparison between acetabulum-only,femur-only and both component revision hip arthroplasty

Background

Dislocation may complicate revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). We examined the correlation between the components revised during hip arthroplasty (femur only, acetabulum only and both components) to the rates of dislocation in the first and multiple revision THA.

Methods

We obtained data from consecutive revision THAs performed between January 1982 and December 2005. Patients were grouped into femur-only revision, acetabulum-only revision and revision THA for both components.

Results

A total of 749 revision THAs performed during the study period met our inclusion criteria: 369 first-time revisions and 380 repeated revisions. Dislocation rates in patients undergoing first-time revisions (5.69%) were significantly lower than in those undergoing repeated revisions (10.47%; p = 0.022). Within the group of first-time revisions, dislocation rates for acetabulum-only revisions (10.28%) were significantly higher than those for both components (4.61%) and femur-only (0%) reconstructions (p = 0.025).

Conclusion

Although patients undergoing first-time revisions had lower rates of dislocations than those undergoing repeated revisions, acetabulum-only reconstructions performed at first-time revision arthroplasty entailed an increased risk for instability.     

Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis After Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Does It Decrease Infection Risk?

BackgroundExtended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOA) has been shown to reduce infection after high-risk primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and reimplantations. However, data are limited regarding EOA after aseptic revision THAs. This study evaluated the impact of EOA on infection-related outcomes after aseptic revision THAs.MethodsWe retrospectively identified 1,107 aseptic revision THAs performed between 2014 and 2019. Patients who received EOA >24 hours perioperatively (n = 370) were compared to those who did not (n = 737) using an inverse probability of treatment weighting model. Their mean age was 65 years (range, 19-98 years), mean body mass index was 30 kg/m² (range, 16-72), and 54% were women. Outcomes included cumulative probabilities of any infection, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and re-revision or reoperation for infection. Mean follow-up was 4 years (range, 2-8 years).ResultsThe cumulative probability of any infection after aseptic revision THA was 2.3% at 90 days, 2.7% at 1 year, and 3.5% at 5 years. The cumulative probability of PJI was 1.7% at 90 days, 2.1% at 1 year, and 2.8% at 5 years. There was a trend toward an increased risk of any infection (hazards ratio [HR] = 2.6; P = .058), PJI (HR = 2.6; P = .085), and re-revision (HR = 6.5; P = .077) or reoperation (HR = 2.3; P = .095) for infection in patients who did not have EOA at the final clinical follow-up.ConclusionsEOA after aseptic revision THA was not associated with a statistically significant decreased risk of any infection, PJI, or re-revision or reoperation for infection at all time points.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Success Rates of Debridement,Antibiotics, and Implant Retention in 230 Infected Total Knee Arthroplasties: Implications for Classification of Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BackgroundProsthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most common cause of failure following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study aimed to determine the success of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) in a large cohort of TKA PJIs and assess the utility of current classification systems in predicting DAIR outcomes in early postoperative, late hematogenous, and chronic PJIs.MethodsIn a multicenter review over 15 years, 230 patients underwent DAIR for first episode PJI following primary TKA. Patient demographics, disease and surgical factors, treatment regime, and outcomes were identified. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were performed to identify factors associated with successful DAIR. Continuous variables with predictive value were further analyzed using receiver operating characteristic curves. The ability to predict DAIR outcomes of multiple classification systems was also assessed.ResultsPatients were followed for an average of 6.9 years. The overall success rate of DAIR was 53.9%. On receiver operating characteristic analysis, 3 months (area under the curve = 0.63) and 1-year age (area under the curve = 0.66) of implant cut-offs was similarly predictive of outcomes. On multivariate survival analysis, DAIR was successful in 64% of “early” PJIs (implant <1 year) vs 38% of “late hematogenous” PJIs (implant >1 year; odds ratio [OR] 1.78, P = .01). For late PJIs (implant >1 year), Staphylococcus aureus (OR 4.70, P < .001) and gram-negative infections (OR 2.56, P = .031) were risk factors for DAIR failure.ConclusionDAIR has a high failure rate in all PJIs occurring more than a year post primary TKA, particularly when caused by S aureus or gram-negative bacteria. The age of implant is an important predictor of DAIR outcomes.     

Does Prior Lumbar Fusion Influence Dislocation Risk in Hip Arthroplasty Performed for Femoral Neck Fracture?

BackgroundImmobility of the lumbar spine predicts instability following elective total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study is to determine how prior lumbar fusion (LF) influenced dislocation rates and revision rates for patients undergoing THA or hemiarthroplasty (HA) for femoral neck fracture (FNF).MethodsA retrospective cohort analysis was conducted utilizing the PearlDiver database from 2010 to 2018. Patients who underwent arthroplasty for FNF were identified based on history of LF and whether they underwent THA or HA. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.ResultsA total of 328 patients with prior LF and FNF who underwent THA were at increased risk for 1-year dislocation (odds ratio [OR] 2.19, P < .001) and 2-year revision (OR 2.22, P < .001) compared to 14,217 patients without LF. The 461 patients with prior LF and FNF who underwent HA were at increased risk for dislocation (OR 2.22, P < .001) compared to 42,327 patients without LF. Patients with prior LF and FNF who underwent THA had higher rates of revision than patients with prior LF who underwent HA for FNF (OR 2.11, P < .001). In patients with prior LF and FNF, THA was associated with significantly increased risk for dislocation (OR 3.07, P < .001) and revision (OR 2.53, P < .001) compared to THA performed for osteoarthritis.ConclusionPatients with prior LF who sustained an FNF and underwent THA or HA were at increased risk for early dislocation and revision compared to those without prior LF. This risk of dislocation and revision is even greater than that observed in patients with prior LF who underwent THA for osteoarthritis.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Transverse posterior wall acetabular fracture pattern is associated with increased risk of periprosthetic joint infection after conversion total hip arthroplasty

IntroductionAcetabular fracture subtypes are associated with varying rates of subsequent conversion total hip arthroplasty (THA) after open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) with transverse posterior wall (TPW) patterns having a higher risk for early conversion. Conversion THA is fraught with complications including increased rates of revision and periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). We aimed to determine if TPW pattern is associated with higher rates of readmissions and complications including PJI after conversion compared to other subtypes.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 1,938 acetabular fractures treated with ORIF at our institution from 2005 to 2019, of which 170 underwent conversion that met inclusion criteria, including 80 TPW fracture pattern. Conversion THA outcomes were compared by initial fracture pattern. There was no difference between the TPW and other fracture patterns in age, BMI, comorbidities, surgical variables, length of stay, ICU stay, discharge disposition, or hospital acquired complications related to their initial ORIF procedure. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for PJI at both 90-days and 1-year after conversion.ResultsTPW fracture had higher risk of PJI after conversion THA at 1-year (16.3% vs 5.6%, p = 0.027). Multivariable analysis revealed TPW independently carried increased risk of 90-day (OR 4.89; 95% CI 1.16–20.52; p = 0.03) and 1-year PJI (OR 6.51; 95% CI 1.56–27.16; p = 0.01) compared to the other acetabular fracture patterns. There was no difference between the fracture cohorts in 90-day or 1-year mechanical complications including dislocation, periprosthetic fracture and revision THA for aseptic etiologies, or 90-day all-cause readmission after the conversion procedure.ConclusionAlthough conversion THA after acetabular ORIF carry high rates of PJI overall, TPW fractures are associated with increased risk for PJI after conversion compared to other fracture patterns at 1-year follow-up. Novel management/treatment of these patients either at the time of ORIF and/or conversion THA procedure are needed to reduce PJI rates.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level III (retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing an intervention with analyses of outcomes).     

Increased Mortality After Prosthetic Joint Infection in Primary THA

Background

Revision for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) has a major effect on patients’ health but it remains unclear if early PJI after primary THA is associated with a high mortality.

Questions/Purposes

(1) Do patients with a revision for PJI within 1 year of primary THA have increased mortality compared with patients who do not undergo revision for any reason within 1 year of primary THA? (2) Do patients who undergo a revision for PJI within 1 year of primary THA have an increased mortality risk compared with patients who undergo an aseptic revision? (3) Are there particular bacteria among patients with PJI that are associated with an increased risk of death?

Methods

This population-based cohort study was based on the longitudinally maintained Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register on primary THA performed in Denmark from 2005 to 2014. Data from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register were linked to microbiology databases, the National Register of Patients, and the Civil Registration System to obtain data on microbiology, comorbidity, and vital status on all patients. Because reporting to the register is compulsory for all public and private hospitals in Denmark, the completeness of registration is 98% for primary THA and 92% for revisions (2016 annual report). The mortality risk for the patients who underwent revision for PJI within 1 year from implantation of primary THA was compared with (1) the mortality risk for patients who did not undergo revision for any reason within 1 year of primary THA; and (2) the mortality risk for patients who underwent an aseptic revision. A total of 68,504 primary THAs in 59,954 patients were identified, of those 445 primary THAs underwent revision for PJI, 1350 primary THAs underwent revision for other causes and the remaining 66,709 primary THAs did not undergo revision. Patients were followed from implantation of primary THA until death or 1 year of followup, or, in case of a revision, 1 year from the date of revision.

Results

Within 1 year of primary THA, 8% (95% CI, 6%–11%) of patients who underwent revision for PJI died. The adjusted relative mortality risk for patients with revision for PJI was 2.18 (95% CI, 1.54–3.08) compared with the patients who did not undergo revision for any cause (p < 0.001). The adjusted relative mortality risk for patients with revisions for PJI compared with patients with aseptic revision was 1.87 (95% CI, 1.11–3.15; p = 0.019). Patients with enterococci-infected THA had a 3.10 (95% CI, 1.66–5.81) higher mortality risk than patients infected with other bacteria (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Revision for PJI within 1 year after primary THA induces an increased mortality risk during the first year after the revision surgery. This study should incentivize further studies on prevention of PJI and on risk to patients with the perspective to reduce mortality in patients who have had THA in general and for patients with PJI specifically.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.

     

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis: Long-Term Results

BackgroundAnkylosing spondylitis (AS) is a common inflammatory spondyloarthropathy with hip involvement in 40% of patients. With the recent interest in the hip-spine interplay, the purpose of this study was to define the long-term outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the setting of AS.Methods174 hips in patients with AS treated with revision THA from 1969 to 2016 were identified. Mean age at revision THA was 53 years and 76% were male. Cumulative incidences of any re-revision, reoperation, and dislocation were calculated using a competing risk analysis. Mean follow-up was 13 years.ResultsThe cumulative incidence of any re-revision after index revision THA was 7% at 5 years and 36% at 20 years. Cumulative incidence of any reoperation was 9% at 5 years and 38% at 20 years. Cumulative incidence of dislocation was 6% at 5 years and 8% at 20 years. Revision THAs performed with contemporary implants (2000-2016) had a lower but statistically nonsignificant cumulative incidence of any re-revision when compared with historical implants (before 2000) at 5 years (5% vs 8%), 10 years (11% vs 18%), and 15 years (11% vs 38%) (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-1.33; P = .016).ConclusionIn this large series of 174 revision THAs in patients with AS, the cumulative incidence of dislocation was 8% at 20 years. The 20-year cumulative incidence of any re-revision was 36%, which is similar to reported rates in patients with comparable demographic features without AS.Level of EvidenceLevel IV.