There is an apparent need for easily accessible research data on Periprosthetic hip joint infections (PJI)(1). Administrative discharge registers could be a valuable single-sources for this purpose, and studies originating from such registers have been published(2–4). However, the quality of routinely collected data for administrative purposes may be questionable for use in epidemiological research. The aim of this study was to estimate the positive predictive value of the International Classification of Disease 10th revision (ICD-10) periprosthetic hip joint infection diagnose code T84.5.

The study was performed as a cross-sectional study on data extracted from the Danish National Patient Register. Patients with a registration of performed surgical treatment for hip PJI were identified via the ICD-10 code T84.5 (Infection and inflammatory reaction due to internal joint prosthesis) in association with hip-joint associated surgical procedure codes. Medical records of the identified patients (n=283) were verified for the existence of a periprosthetic hip joint infection. Positive predictive values with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated.

A T84.5 diagnosis code irrespective of the associated surgical procedure code had a positive predictive value of 85 % (95% CI: 80–89). Stratified to T84.5 in combination with an infection-specific surgical procedure code the positive predictive value increased to 86% (95% CI: 80–91), and in combination with a noninfection-specific surgical procedure code decreased to 82% (95% CI: 72–89).

This study is the first to evaluate the only discharge diagnose code of prosthesis-related infection in an administrative discharge register. It is apparent, that codes in administrative discharge registers are prone to misclassification on an administrative level, either by wrongful coding by the physician or administrative personal in the registration process. Misclassification must be expected and taken into consideration when using single-source administrative discharge registers for epidemiological research on periprosthetic hip joint infection. We believe that the periprosthetic hip joint infection diagnose code can be of use in single-source register based studies, but preferably should be used in combination with alternate data sources to ensure higher validity(5)

This study is funded in part by the Lundbeck foundation Centre for Fast-track Hip and Knee Surgery, Denmark.

The Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register (DHR) is a national database on total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with a high completeness and validity of registration for primary procedures. The aim was to validate the registration in DHR for revisions due to Prosthetic Joint Infection (PJI).

We identified a cohort of patients in the DHR who underwent primary THA from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2012 and we followed these patients until first-time revision, death, emigration or December 31, 2012. The PJI diagnosis registered was tested against a gold standard encompassing information from microbiology, prescription, and clinical biochemistry registries in combination with clinical findings retrieved from medical records. We estimated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for PJI in DHR alone and in DHR combined with microbiology registries.

Out of 37,828 primary THAs, 1,382 were registered with any revision, 232 of which were due to PJI. For PJI revisions in DHR, the sensitivity was 67.0% (CI: 61.0 – 72.6), specificity 95.2% (CI: 93.8 – 96.4), PPV 77.2% (CI: 71.2 – 82.4), and NPV 92.3% (CI 90.7 – 93.8).

Combining DHR with microbiology registries led to a notable increased in the sensitivity for PJI revision to 90.3% (CI: 86.1 – 93.5) and likewise for specificity 99.6% (CI: 99.1 – 99.9), PPV 98.4% (CI: 95.9 – 99.6) and NPV 98.5% (CI: 97.6 – 99.1).

Only two thirds of PJI revisions were captured in DHR and the PPV was moderate. However, combining DHR with microbiology registries improved the accuracy remarkably.

The study was supported by Region of Southern Denmark and Lillebaelt Hospitals.