Postvaccination immune responses and risk of primary total hip arthroplasty—A population-based cohort study

Objective To investigate the relationship between individual postvaccination immune responses and subsequent risk of total hip arthroplasty (THA) due to idiopathic osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Method Results of tuberculin skin tests (TSTs) following the Bacille Calmette–Guerin (BCG) vaccination were used as a marker of individual immune responses. TST results from the mandatory mass tuberculosis screening program 1948–1975 (n = 236 770) were linked with information on subsequent THA during 1987–2020 from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. The multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was performed. Results A total of 10 698 individuals received a THA during follow-up. In men, there was no association between TST and risk of THA due to OA (Hazard ratio [HR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92–1.12 for positive versus negative TST and HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95–1.18 for strong positive vs negative TST), while the risk estimates increased with increasingly restrictive sensitivity analyses. In women, there was no association with THA due to OA for positive versus negative TST (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92–1.05), while a strong positive TST was associated with reduced risk of THA (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84–0.97). No significant associations were observed in the sensitivity analysis for women or for THA due to RA. Conclusion Our results suggest that an increased postvaccination immune response is associated with a nonsignificant trend of increased risk of THA among men and a decreased risk among women, although risk estimates were small.publishedVersio

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

Background and purpose — Focus on prevention, surveillance, and treatment of infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the last decade has resulted in new knowledge and guidelines. Previous publications have suggested an increased incidence of surgical revisions due to infection after THA. We assessed whether there have been changes in the risk of revision due to deep infection after primary THAs reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) over the period 2005–2019. Patients and methods — Primary THAs reported to the NAR from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2019 were included. Adjusted Cox regression analyses with the first revision due to deep infection after primary THA were performed. We investigated changes in the risk of revision as a function of time of primary THA. Time was stratified into 5-year periods. We studied the whole population of THAs, and the subgroups: all-cemented, all-uncemented, reverse hybrid (cemented cup), and hybrid THAs (cemented stem). In addition, we investigated factors that were associated with the risk of revision, and changes in the time span from primary THA to revision. Results — Of the 108,854 primary THAs that met the inclusion criteria, 1,365 (1.3%) were revised due to deep infection. The risk of revision due to infection, at any time after primary surgery, increased through the period studied. Compared with THAs implanted in 2005–2009, the relative risk of revision due to infection was 1.4 (95% CI 1.2–1.7) for 2010–2014, and 1.6 (1.1–1.9) for 2015–2019. We found an increased risk for all types of implant fixation. Compared to 2005–2009, for all THAs, the risk of revision due to infection 0–30 days postoperatively was 2.2 (1.8–2.8) for 2010–2014 and 2.3 (1.8–2.9) for 2015–2019, 31–90 days postoperatively 1.0 (0.7–1.6) for 2010–2014 and 1.6 (1.0–2.5) for 2015–2019, and finally 91 days–1 year postoperatively 1.1 (0.7–1.8) for 2010–2014 and 1.6 (1.0–2.6) for 2015–2019. From 1 to 5 years postoperatively, the risk of revision due to infection was similar to 2005–2009 for both the subsequent time periods Interpretation — The risk of revision due to deep infection after THA increased throughout the period 2005–2019, but appears to have levelled out after 2010. The increase was mainly due to an increased risk of early revisions, and may partly have been caused by a change of practice rather than a change in the incidence of infection.publishedVersio

Antibiotic-loaded bone cement in prevention of periprosthetic joint infections in primary total knee arthroplasty: A register-based multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (ALBA trial)

Introduction The current evidence on the efficacy of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in reducing the risk of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) after primary joint reconstruction is insufficient. In several European countries, the use of ALBC is routine practice unlike in the USA where ALBC use is not approved in low-risk patients. Therefore, we designed a double-blinded pragmatic multicentre register-based randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to investigate the effects of ALBC compared with plain bone cement in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods and analysis A minimum of 9,172 patients undergoing full-cemented primary TKA will be recruited and equally randomised into the ALBC group and the plain bone cement group. This trial will be conducted in Norwegian hospitals that routinely perform cemented primary TKA. The primary outcome will be risk of revision surgery due to PJI at 1-year of follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be: risk of revision due to any reason including aseptic loosening at 1, 6, 10 and 20 years of follow-up; patient-related outcome measures like function, pain, satisfaction and health-related quality of life at 1, 6 and 10 years of follow-up; risk of changes in the microbial pattern and resistance profiles of organisms cultured in subsequent revisions at 1, 6, 10 and 20 years of follow-up; cost-effectiveness of routine ALBC versus plain bone cement use in primary TKA. We will use 1:1 randomisation with random permuted blocks and stratify by participating hospitals to randomise patients to receive ALBC or plain bone cement. Inclusion, randomisation and follow-up will be through the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Ethics and dissemination The trial was approved by the Western Norway Regional Committees on Medical and Health Research Ethics (reference number: 2019/751/REK vest) on 21 June 2019. The findings of this trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Trial registration number NCT04135170.publishedVersio

Prosthetic joint infection—a devastating complication of hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture

Background and purpose — Hemiarthroplasty is the most common treatment in elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fracture. Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a feared complication. The infection rate varies in the literature, and there are limited descriptive data available. We investigated the characteristics and outcome of PJI following hemiarthroplasty over a 15-year period. Patients and methods — Patients with PJI were identified among 519 patients treated with hemiarthroplasty for a femoral neck fracture at Oslo University Hospital between 1998 and 2012. We used prospectively registered data from previous studies, and recorded additional data from the patients’ charts when needed. Results — Of the 519 patients, we identified 37 patients (6%) with early PJI. 20 of these 37 patients became free of infection. Soft tissue debridement and retention of implant was performed in 35 patients, 15 of whom became free of infection with an intact arthroplasty. The 1-year mortality rate was 15/37. We found an association between 1-year mortality and treatment failure (p = 0.001). Staphylococcus aureus and polymicrobial infection were the most common microbiological findings, each accounting for 14 of the 37 infections. Enterococcus spp. was found in 9 infections, 8 of which were polymicrobial. There was an association between polymicrobial infection and treatment failure, and between polymicrobial infection and 1-year mortality. Interpretation — PJI following hemiarthroplasty due to femoral neck fracture is a devastating complication in the elderly. We found a high rate of polymicrobial PJIs frequently including Enterococcus spp, which is different from what is common in PJI after elective total hip arthroplasty

Virus transmission during orthopedic surgery on patients with COVID-19 – a brief narrative review

Background and purpose — COVID-19 is among the most impactful pandemics that the society has experienced. Orthopedic surgery involves procedures generating droplets and aerosols and there is concern amongst surgeons that otherwise rational precautionary principles are being set aside due to lack of scientific evidence and a shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). This narrative review attempts to translate relevant knowledge into practical recommendations for healthcare workers involved in orthopedic surgery on patients with known or suspected COVID-19. Patients and methods — We unsystematically searched in PubMed, reference lists, and the WHO’s web page for relevant publications concerning problems associated with the PPE used in perioperative practice when a patient is COVID-19 positive or suspected to be. A specific search for literature regarding COVID-19 was extended to include publications from the SARS epidemic in 2002/3. Results — Transmission of infectious viruses from patient to surgeon during surgery is possible, but does not appear to be a considerable problem in clinical practice. Seal-leakage is a problem with surgical masks. Due to the lack of studies and reports, the possibility of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from patient to surgeon during droplet- and aerosol-generating procedures is unknown. Interpretation — Surgical masks should be used only in combination with a widely covering visor and when a respirator (N95, FFP2, P3) is not made available. Furthermore, basic measures to reduce shedding of droplets and aerosols during surgery and correct and consistent use of personal protective equipment is important

Virus transmission during orthopedic surgery on patients with COVID-19 – a brief narrative review

Background and purpose — COVID-19 is among the most impactful pandemics that the society has experienced. Orthopedic surgery involves procedures generating droplets and aerosols and there is concern amongst surgeons that otherwise rational precautionary principles are being set aside due to lack of scientific evidence and a shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). This narrative review attempts to translate relevant knowledge into practical recommendations for healthcare workers involved in orthopedic surgery on patients with known or suspected COVID-19. Patients and methods — We unsystematically searched in PubMed, reference lists, and the WHO’s web page for relevant publications concerning problems associated with the PPE used in perioperative practice when a patient is COVID-19 positive or suspected to be. A specific search for literature regarding COVID-19 was extended to include publications from the SARS epidemic in 2002/3. Results — Transmission of infectious viruses from patient to surgeon during surgery is possible, but does not appear to be a considerable problem in clinical practice. Seal-leakage is a problem with surgical masks. Due to the lack of studies and reports, the possibility of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from patient to surgeon during droplet- and aerosol-generating procedures is unknown. Interpretation — Surgical masks should be used only in combination with a widely covering visor and when a respirator (N95, FFP2, P3) is not made available. Furthermore, basic measures to reduce shedding of droplets and aerosols during surgery and correct and consistent use of personal protective equipment is important