Abstract
Aims
The purpose of this study was to validate the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register (DHR).
Patients and Methods
We identified a cohort of patients from the DHR who had undergone primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) since 1 January 2005 and followed them until first-time revision, death, emigration or until 31 December 2012.
Revision for PJI, as registered in the DHR, was validated against a benchmark which included information from microbiology databases, prescription registers, clinical biochemistry registers and clinical records.
We estimated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for PJI in the DHR alone and in the DHR when combined with microbiology databases.
Results
In total, 1382 of the 37 826 primary THAs in the DHR were registered as having been revised for any cause once 26 patients with errors in registration had been excluded: 232 of these were for PJI. For this group, the sensitivity was 67%, specificity 95%, PPV 77%, and NPV 92%. Combining the data from the DHR with those from microbiology databases increased the sensitivity to 90% and also improved specificity (100%), PPV (98%) and NPV (98%).
Conclusion
Only two thirds of revisions for PJI were captured in the DHR and only 77% of the PJI reported to the DHR could be confirmed to be infected.
Take home message: combining the data from the DHR with those from microbiology databases substantially improved the validity of the diagnosis of PJI and should enable future register-based studies.
Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:320–5.
