Aim

Ankle fracture surgery comes with a risk of fracture-related infection (FRI). Identifying risk factors are important in preoperative planning, in management of patients, and for information to the individual patient about their risk of complications. In addition, modifiable factors can be addressed prior to surgery. The aim of the current paper was to identify risk factors for FRI in patients operated for ankle fractures.

Aim

Surgical treatment of ankle fractures comes with a substantial risk of complications, including infection. An unambiguously definition of fracture-related infections (FRI) has been missing. Recently, FRI has been defined by a consensus group with a diagnostic algorithm containing suggestive and confirmatory criteria. The aim of the current study was to report the prevalence of FRI in patients operated for ankle fractures and to assess the applicability of the diagnostic algorithm from the consensus group.

Aim

Previous publications have suggested that the incidence of revisions due to infection after THA is increasing. We performed updated time-trend analyses of risk and timing of revision due to infection after primary THAs in the Nordic countries during the period 2004–2018.

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.

Aims

To compare the functional outcome, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and satisfaction of patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and a single debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure for deep infection, using either the transgluteal or the posterior surgical approach for both procedures.

Aim

The aim of this study was to assess the influence of the true operating room (OR) ventilation on the risk of revision due to infection after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR).

Background

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after knee arthroplasty surgery remains a serious complication. Yet, there is no international consensus on the surgical treatment of PJI. The purpose was to assess the prosthesis survival rates, risk of re-revision, and mortality rate following the different surgical strategies (1-stage or 2-stage implant revision, and irrigation and debridement (IAD) with implant retention) used to treat PJI.

Introduction

Periprosthetic osteolysis resulting in aseptic loosening is a leading cause for total hip arthroplasty (THA) failure. Individuals vary in their susceptibility to osteolysis, and it is thought that heritable factors contribute to this variation. We conducted two genome-wide association studies to identify genetic risk loci associated with osteolysis and genetic risk loci associated with time to prosthesis failure due to osteolysis.

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.

Aim

The aim of this study was to validate the information on operating room ventilation reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) and to assess the influence of this ventilation on the risk of revision due to infection after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

The aim of this study was to validate the information on operating room ventilation reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR). We then wanted to assess the influence of operating room ventilation on the rate of revision due to infection after primary THA performed in operating rooms with conventional ventilation, “greenhouse”–ventilation and Laminar Airflow ventilation (LAF).

We identified cases of THA revisions due to deep infection and the type of ventilation system reported to the NAR from the primary THA. We included 5 orthopaedic units reporting 17947 primary THAs and 136 (0.8%) revisions due to infection during the 28 year inclusion period from 1987 to 2014. The hospitals were visited and the current and previous ventilation systems were evaluated together with the hospitals head engineer, and the factual ventilation on the specific operating rooms was thereby assessed. The association between revision due to infection and operating room ventilation was estimated by calculating relative risks (RR) in a Cox regression model.

73% of the primary THAs were performed in a room with LAF, in contrast to the reported 80 % of LAF. There was similar risk of revision due to infection after THA performed in operating rooms with laminar air flow compared to conventional ventilation (RR=0.7, 95 % CI: 0.2–2.3) and after THA performed in operating rooms with “greenhouse”-ventilation compared to conventional ventilation (RR=1.2, 0.1–11).

Surgeons are not fully aware of what kind of ventilation there is in the operating room. This study may indicate that, concerning reduction in incidence of THA infection, LAF does not justify the substantial installation cost. The numbers in the present study are too small to conclude strongly. Therefore, the study will be expanded to include all hospitals reporting to the NAR.

Introduction

Infection after total hip arthroplasty is a severe complication. Controversies still exist as to the use of cemented or uncemented implants in the revision of infected THAs. Based on the data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) we have studied this topic.

Background and Purpose: The purpose of the present study was to assess the risk for revision due to deep infection for primary uncemented total hip arthroplasties (THAs) reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) over the period 1987–2007.

Methods: All primary uncemented THAs reported to NAR from the period 1987–2007 were studied. Adjusted Cox regression analyses with first revision due to deep infection as the end-point were performed. Changes in the revision rate as a function of year of operation were investigated, as was impact of risk factors (gender, age, type of diagnosis, duration of surgery, operation room ventilation and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis) on risk for revision due to deep infection.

Results: 14,348 primary uncemented THAs met the inclusion criteria. 97 THAs had been revised due to deep infection (5-year survival 99.56). Risk for revision due to deep infection increased through the period studied. Compared to the uncemented THAs implanted 1987–1992, the risk for revision due to infection was 1.2 times higher (95%CI 0.6–2.4, p=0.6) for those implanted 1993–1997, 1.4 times (95%CI 0.7–2.9, p=0.3) for 1998–2002, and 5.3 times (95%CI 2.6–10.7, p=< 0.001) for 2003–2007. The increase in risk for revision due to infection for primary uncemented THAs was most pronounced after the year 2000. No risk factor registered had any statistically significant impact on risk for revision due to infection in this study.

Interpretation: The results of this study indicate an increase in incidence of deep infection after uncemented THAs during the period 1987–2007. Concomitant changes in confounding factors, however, complicate the interpretation of these results.