Abstract
Aim
In recent years, many studies on revision for infection after arthroplasty have been published. In national arthroplasty registers, revision for infection is defined as surgical debridement, with or without removal or exchange of the entire or parts of the prosthesis due to deep infection, and should be reported to the register immediately after surgery. The diagnosis of infection is made at the surgeon's discretion, based on pre- and perioperative assessment and evaluation, and is not to be corrected to the register based on peroperative bacterial cultures. Due to this lack of validation, the rate of revision for infection will only be an approximation of the true rate of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Our aim was to validate the reporting of infection after total hip arthroplasty, and to assess if revisions for infection actually represented true PJI.
Methods
We investigated the reported revisions for infection and aseptic loosening after total hip arthroplasty from 12 hospitals, representing one region of the country, reported during the period 2010–2020. The electronic patient charts were investigated for information on surgical treatment, use of antibiotics, biochemistry and microbiology findings. PJI was defined as growth of at least two phenotypically identical microbes in perioperative tissue samples. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were calculated.
Results
145 revisions for infection and 137 revisions for aseptic loosening were reported. Of the reported infections, there were 141/145 true positives and 4/145 false positives. Of the reported aseptic loosenings, there were 126/137 true negatives and 11/137 false negatives. This gives a positive predictive value of 0.97, negative predictive value of 0.92, sensitivity of 0.93, specificity of 0.97 and accuracy of 0.95.
Interpretation
We found the reporting revision for infection after total hip arthroplasty to the national register accurate. There was high correlation between reported revision for infection and PJI. Studies on revision for infection from arthroplasty registers may therefore be considered as reliable as studies of true PJI.
