Aims. We studied the impact of direct anterior (DA) versus non-anterior (NA) surgical approaches on prosthetic joint infection (PJI), and examined the impact of new perioperative protocols on PJI rates following all surgical approaches at a single institution. Patients and Methods. A total of 6086 consecutive patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) at a single institution between 2013 and 2016 were retrospectively evaluated. Data obtained from electronic patient medical records included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), medical comorbidities, surgical approach, and presence of deep PJI. There were 3053 male patients (50.1%) and 3033 female patients (49.9%). The mean age and BMI of the entire cohort was 62.7 years (18 to 102, . sd. 12.3) and 28.8 kg/m. 2. (13.3 to 57.6, . sd. 6.1), respectively. Infection rates were calculated yearly for the DA and NA approach groups. Covariates were assessed and used in multivariate analysis to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for risk of development of PJI with DA compared with NA approaches. In order to determine the effect of adopting a set of infection prevention protocols on PJI, we calculated ORs for PJI comparing patients undergoing THA for two distinct time periods: 2013 to 2014 and 2015 to 2016. These periods corresponded to before and after we implemented a set of perioperative infection protocols. Results. There were 1985 patients in the DA group and 4101 patients in the NA group. The overall rate of PJI at our institution during the study period was 0.82% (50/6086) and decreased from 0.96% (12/1245) in 2013 to 0.53% (10/1870) in 2016. There were 24 deep PJIs in the DA group (1.22%) and 26 deep PJIs in the NA group (0.63%; p = 0.023). After multivariate analysis, the DA approach was 2.2 times more likely to result in PJI than the NA approach (OR 2.2 (95% confidence interval 1.1 to 3.9); p = 0.006) for the overall study period. Conclusion. We found a higher rate of PJI in DA versus NA approaches. Infection prevention protocols such as use of aspirin, dilute povidone-iodine lavage, vancomycin powder, and Gram-negative coverage may have been positively associated with diminished PJI rates observed for all approaches over time. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):2–8

Introduction. There has been a renewed interest in the surgical approach used for total hip arthroplasty (THA). Risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) have been well studied over the past decade, yet PJI remains one of the most devastating complications following THA. We studied the impact of direct anterior (DA) versus non-direct anterior (NA) surgical approaches on PJI, and examined the impact of new perioperative protocols on PJI rates following all surgical approaches at a single institution. Methods. 6086 continuous patients undergoing primary THA at a single institution from 2013–2016 were retrospectively evaluated. Data obtained from electronic patient medical records included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), medical comorbidities, surgical approach, and presence of deep PJI. Deep PJI was defined according to National Healthcare Safety Network's (NHSN) criteria for joint space infection following prosthetic hip replacement. Infection rates were calculated yearly for the DA and NA approach groups. Covariates were assessed and used in multivariate analysis to calculate adjusted odds ratios for risk of development of PJI with DA compared to NA approaches. In order to determine the effect of adopting a set of infection prevention protocols and patient optimization on PJI, we calculated odds ratios for PJI comparing patients undergoing THA for two distinct time periods: 2013–2014 and 2015–2016. These periods corresponded to before and after we implemented a set of perioperative infection protocols. Results. There were 1985 patients in the DA group and 4101 patients in the NA group. The overall rate of PJI at our institution during the study period was 0.82% (50/6086) and decreased from 0.96% (12/1245) in 2013 to 0.53% (10/1870) in 2016. There were 24 deep PJI's in the DA group (1.22%) and 26 deep PJI's in the NA group (0.63%) (p=0.0231). After multivariate analysis, the DA approach was 2.2 times more likely to result in PJI than the NA approach (95% CI OR 1.1–3.9, p=0.0062) for the overall study period. When stratified by time, patients undergoing THA utilizing any approach prior to adopting the infection prevention protocols (2013–2014), were 1.8 times more likely to have PJI compared to patients undergoing THA after the adoption of the protocols, however this result did not reach significance (95% CI OR 0.901–3.653, p=0.0953). Conclusions. We found a higher rate of PJI in DA versus NA approaches. However, adoption of infection prevention protocols patient optimization mitigated these PJI rates, such that they were equalized between the approach groups for the period following the use of infection prevention and patient optimization protocols. Institutional learning curves and adaptation of interventions aimed at PJI prevention positively contributed to the decreased rate of PJI observed for all approaches over time. Evidence: Level II – Case control

Aims

The aims of this study were to determine the incidence and factors for developing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hemiarthroplasty (HA) for hip fracture, and to evaluate treatment outcome and identify factors associated with treatment outcome.

Aims

The primary aim was to determine the influence of COVID-19 on 30-day mortality following hip fracture. Secondary aims were to determine predictors of COVID-19 status on presentation and later in the admission; the rate of hospital acquired COVID-19; and the predictive value of negative swabs on admission.

Aims

Advances in surgical technique and implant design may influence the incidence and mechanism of failure resulting in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). The purpose of the current study was to characterize aetiologies requiring rTHA, and to determine whether temporal changes existed in these aetiologies over a ten-year period.