header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 104-B, Issue SUPP_10 | Pages 37 - 37
1 Oct 2022
VALIDATION OF REPORTED REVISIONS FOR DEEP INFECTION TO A NATIONAL ARTHROPLASTY REGISTER
Lutro O Mo S Leta TH Fenstad AM Tjørhom MB Bruun T Hallan G Furnes O Dale H
Full Access
View article

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.

Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 98-B, Issue SUPP_23 | Pages 50 - 50
1 Dec 2016
TREATMENT OF INFECTION AFTER PRIMARY TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY IN A UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL
Lutro O Dale H Sjursen H Schrama JC Høvding P Bartz-Johannessen CA Hallan G Engesæter LB
Full Access
View article

Aim

To see what surgical strategy was used in treating infected total hip arthroplasties (THA), relative to bacterial findings, level of inflammation, length of antibiotic treatment (AB) and re-revisions. Further, to assess the results of treatment after three months and one year.

Method

We used our national arthroplasty register (NAR) to identify THA revised for deep infection from 2004–2015 reported from our hospital. We identified the strategy of revision, i.e. one-stage exchange (one-stage), two-stage exchange (two-stage), debridement and implant retention (DAIR), or Girdlestone, and reported re-revisions for infection. We defined cure as no AB, no need for further surgery and joint with prosthesis (not Girdlestone).

From the hospitals’ medical records we retrieved bacterial findings from the revisions, level of C-reactive protein (CRP), type of antibiotics given, duration of antibiotic therapy and clinical data regarding the patients. The information reported to the NAR was also validated.