Abstract
Background and purpose: Revision due to infection, as reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR), is a surrogate endpoint to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We aimed to find the accuracy of the reported causes of revision after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared with PJI to see how good surgeons were at disclosing infection, based on pre- and intraoperative assessment.Patients and methods: We investigated the reasons for revision potentially caused by PJI following primary THA: infection, aseptic loosening, prolonged wound drainage, and pain only, reported to the NAR from surgeons in the region of Western Norway during the period 2010–2020. The electronic patient charts were investigated for information on clinical assessment, treatment, biochemistry, and microbiological findings. PJI was defined in accordance with the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) definition. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated.Results: 363 revisions in the NAR were eligible for analyses. Causes of revision were (reported/validated): infection (153/177), aseptic loosening (139/133), prolonged wound drainage (37/13), and pain only (34/40). The sensitivity for reported revision due to infection compared with PJI was 80%, specificity was 94%, and accuracy—the surgeons’ ability to disclose PJI or non-septic revision at time of revision—was 87%. The accuracy for the specific revision causes was highest for revision due to aseptic loosening (95%) and pain only (95%), and lowest for revision due to prolonged wound drainage (86%).Conclusion: The accuracy of surgeon-reported revisions due to infection as representing PJI was 87% in the NAR. Our study shows the importance of systematic correction of the reported cause of revision in arthroplasty registers, after results from adequately taken bacterial samples.
Publisher
MJS Publishing, Medical Journals Sweden AB
Subject
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,General Medicine,Surgery
Reference27 articles.
1. Witso E. The rate of prosthetic joint infection is underestimated in the arthroplasty registers. Acta Orthop 2015; 86: 277-8. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2015.1042320.
2. Norwegian Arthroplasty Register—Annual Report 2022. Norwegian Arthroplasty Register; 2022. Available from: https://helse-bergen.no/seksjon/Nasjonal_kompetansetjeneste_leddproteser_hoftebrudd/Share%20point%20Documents/Rapport/Report%202022%20english.pdf.
3. Dale H, Hovding P, Tveit S M, Graff J B, Lutro O, Schrama J C, et al. Increasing but levelling out risk of revision due to infection after total hip arthroplasty: a study on 108,854 primary THAs in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from 2005 to 2019. Acta Orthop 2021; 92: 208-14. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1851533.
4. Havelin L I, Engesaeter L B, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Lie S A, Vollset S E. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplasties. Acta Orthop Scand 2000; 71: 337-53. doi: 10.1080/000164700317393321.
5. Parvizi J, Tan T L, Goswami K, Higuera C, Della Valle C, Chen A F, et al. The 2018 definition of periprosthetic hip and knee infection: an evidence-based and validated criteria. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 1309-1314.e1302. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.078.