Abstract
The use of routine sampling for histological analysis during revision hip replacement has been standard practice in our unit for many years. It is used to assess for the presence of inflammatory processes that may represent peri-prosthetic infection.
Our study examines 152 consecutive patients who underwent revision hip replacement in our centre for all reasons, excluding malignant neoplasm or metastasis. We reviewed the cases from a prospectively collated database, comparing microbiology results with histology results. Both microscopic and macroscopic analysis by specialist musculoskeletal histopathologist was included in our study.
We found 17 (11.2%) patients had cultured bacteria from intra-operative samples. Eight patients (5.3%) had histological findings interpreted as infection. Only one patient who had macroscopic and microscopic histology findings suggestive of infection also had culture results that identified a pathogen. Furthermore, the macroscopic analyses by the histopathologist suggested infection in nine patients. Only one patient with positive culture in greater than 2 samples had histological features of infection.
Of the 4 patients who were found to have 3 or more samples where an organism was identified only one had histological features of infection. This represents 25% sensitivity when using histology to analyse samples for infection. Of the 8 patients who had both macroscopic and microscopic features of infection only 1 patients cultured bacteria in more than 3 samples (PPV 12.5%).
Our experience does not support the routine sampling for histology in revision hip replacement. We suggest it is only beneficial in cases where infection is suspected or where a multi-procedure, staged revision is performed and the surgeon is planning return to theatre for the final stage. This is a substantial paradigm shift from the current practice among revision arthroplasty surgeons in the United Kingdom but will equate to a substantial cost saving.
