Our aim was to estimate the total costs of all hospitalizations for treating periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) by main management strategy within 24 months post-diagnosis using activity-based costing. Additionally, we investigated the influence of individual PJI treatment pathways on hospital costs within the first 24 months. Using admission and procedure data from a prospective observational cohort in Australia and New Zealand, Australian Refined Diagnosis Related Groups were assigned to each admitted patient episode of care for activity-based costing estimates of 273 hip PJI patients and 377 knee PJI patients. Costs were aggregated at 24 months post-diagnosis, and are presented in Australian dollars.Aims
Methods
Infection is a leading indication for revision
arthroplasty. Established criteria used to diagnose prosthetic joint infection
(PJI) include a range of laboratory tests. Leucocyte esterase (LE)
is widely used on a colorimetric reagent strip for the diagnosis
of urinary tract infections. This inexpensive test may be used for
the diagnosis or exclusion of PJI. Aspirates from 30 total hip arthroplasties
(THAs) and 79 knee arthroplasties (KA) were analysed for LE activity. Semi-quantitative
reagent strip readings of 15, 70, 125 and 500 white blood cells
(WBC) were validated against a manual synovial white cell count
(WCC). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed
to determine the optimal cut-off point for the semi-quantitative
results. Based on established criteria, six THAs and 15 KAs were
classified as infected. The optimal cut-off point for the diagnosis
of PJI was 97 WBC. The closest semi-quantitative reading for a positive
result was 125 WBC, achieving a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity
of 93%. The positive and negative predictive values of the LE test
strip were 74% and 95% respectively. The LE reagent strip had a high specificity and negative predictive
value. A negative result may exclude PJI and negate the need for
further diagnostic tests. Cite this article:
Prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism after elective total hip replacement is routinely recommended. Our preference has been to use mechanical prophylaxis without anticoagulant drugs. A randomised controlled trial was performed to evaluate whether the incidence of post-operative venous thromboembolism was reduced by using pharmacological anticoagulation with either fondaparinux or enoxaparin in addition to our prophylactic mechanical regimen. A total of 255 Japanese patients who underwent primary unilateral cementless total hip replacement were randomly assigned to one of three postoperative regimens, namely injection of placebo (saline), fondaparinux or enoxaparin. There were 85 patients in each group. All also received the same mechanical prophylaxis during and after the operation, regardless of their assigned group. The primary measurement of efficacy was the presence of a venous thromboembolic event by day 11, defined as deep-vein thrombosis detected by ultrasonography, documented symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis or documented symptomatic pulmonary embolism. The duration of follow-up was 12 weeks. The rate of venous thromboembolism was 7.2% with the placebo, 7.1% with fondaparinux and 6.0% with enoxaparin (p = 0.95 for the comparison of all three groups). Our study confirmed the effectiveness and safety of mechanical thromboprophylaxis without the use of anticoagulant drugs after total hip replacement in Japanese patients.
