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.

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.