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

Increased risk of revision for infection in rheumatoid arthritis patients with total hip replacements

Background and purpose - Medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has changed dramatically over the last 15 years, including immune modulation. We investigated the risk of revision for infection after primary total hip replacement (THR) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis over a 16-year period, and compared it with that in THR patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Patients and methods - We identified 13,384 THRs in RA patients and 377,287 THRs in OA patients from 1995 through 2010 in a dataset from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA). Kaplan-Meier survival curves, with revision for infection as the endpoint, were constructed. Cox regression analyses were performed to calculate the relative risk (RR) of revision for infection adjusted for age, sex, fixation technique, and year of primary surgery. Results - RA patients had a 1.3 times (95% CI 1.0-1.6) higher risk of revision for infection. After 2001, this risk increased more for RA patients than for OA patients. During the first 3 months and from 8 years postoperatively, the risk of revision for infection was higher in RA patients with THRs fixated with antibiotic-loaded cement than in corresponding OA patients. Interpretation - We found a slightly higher overall risk of revision for infection in RA patients than in OA patients, but this difference was only present after 2001. In THRs with antibiotic-loaded cement, the risk of very early and late infections leading to revision was higher in RA patients than in OA patients.Peer reviewe

Infected Hip and Knee Arthroplasties in Rheumatoid Arthritis. A register-based study with focus on risk factors

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease which primarily affects and damages synovial joints. Patients with RA will therefore often undergo joint replacement surgery. Infections after such prosthetic joint replacements are rare but feared complications. RA patients are more susceptible to infections in general and the use of modern aggressive immunosuppressive treatment, such as TNF inhibition (from around the year 2000), may have increased this risk for infection. We have used data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) from 1987 until 2008 (Paper I) and from the much larger database of the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) from 1995 to 2010 (Paper III) to compare the risk of revision for infection in and over time for RA and osteoarthritis (OA) patients. The risk of revision for infection was 1.6 times increased in total knee replacements (TKRs) for RA patients compared to OA patients (Paper I). In total hip replacements (THRs) we found a 1.3 times higher risk of revision for infection in RA compared to OA (Paper III). We concluded that there was a higher risk of revision for infection in RA than in OA patients. For TKRs there was no increase in the risk of revision for infection in RA or in OA patients after the year 2000. In the Norwegian study (Paper I) the incidence of revision for infection of THRs was higher in the period 2001-2008 than in the period 1987-2000. However the increase affected RA and OA patients to the same degree. In the Nordic study (Paper III) the relative risk for RA patients compared to OA patients was increased in the latter period (2002-2010). This coincides with the introduction of TNF inhibitors in the medical treatment of RA. Similarly conflicting results are also found in the literature. From 5-6 years postoperatively, the risk of revision for infection was increased in RA compared to OA in TKRs and THRs (Paper I). Furthermore, we found a higher risk during the first three months and from around 8 years postoperatively in antibiotic-loaded cemented prostheses in RA-patients (Paper III), while no significant difference in the risk of infection for revision was found when comparing RA and OA patients with uncemented THRs. We conclude that the increased risk for late infections in RA is primarily seen for prostheses fixed with antibiotic-loaded cement. Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) has been reported to be the most important causative bacteria in prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in RA. In addition, RA patients are by many authors considered to represent a high-risk group in terms of acquiring infections with bacteria of potentially oral or dental origin. In Paper II we compared the bacterial findings of infections leading to revision in THRs in RA patients with OA patients, based on data from the NAR. We identified 49 infection episodes in 37 RA patients and compared the bacterial findings with 269 infection cases in 255 OA patients. No difference in bacterial findings between RA and OA was found and thus we could not confirm the higher incidence of S. aureus in RA reported previously. Bacteria of potentially odontogenic origin were not found in RA patients but were found in 4% of OA patients and based on our study we could not confirm that RA patients are high-risk patients for infection with bacteria of oral or dental origin

Increasing Resistance of Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci in Total Hip Arthroplasty Infections: 278 THA-Revisions due to Infection Reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from 1993 to 2007

We investigated bacterial findings from intraoperative tissue samples taken during revision due to infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim was to investigate whether the susceptibility patterns changed during the period from 1993 through 2007. Reported revisions due to infection in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) were identified, and 10 representative hospitals in Norway were visited. All relevant information on patients reported to the NAR for a revision due to infection, including bacteriological findings, was collected from the medical records. A total of 278 revision surgeries with bacterial growth in more than 2 samples were identified and included. Differences between three 5-year time periods were tested by the chi-square test for linear trend. The most frequent isolates were coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) (41%, 113/278) and Staphylococcus aureus (19%, 53/278). The proportion of CoNS resistant to the methicillin-group increased from 57% (16/28) in the first period, 1993–1997, to 84% (52/62) in the last period, 2003–2007 (P = 0.003). There was also significant increase in resistance for CoNS to cotrimoxazole, quinolones, clindamycin, and macrolides. All S. aureus isolates were sensitive to both the methicillin-group and the aminoglycosides. For the other bacteria identified no changes in susceptibility patterns were found

Bacterial Findings in Infected Hip Joint Replacements in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoarthritis: A Study of 318 Revisions for Infection Reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

High rates of Staphylococcus aureus are reported in prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). RA patients are considered to have a high risk of infection with bacteria of potentially oral or dental origin. One thousand four hundred forty-three revisions for infection were reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) from 1987 to 2007. For this study 269 infection episodes in 255 OA patients served as control group. In the NAR we identified 49 infection episodes in 37 RA patients from 1987 to 2009. The RA patients were, on average, 10 years younger than the OA patients and there weremore females (70% versus 54%).We found no differences in the bacterial findings in RA and OA. A tendency towards a higher frequency of Staphylococcus aureus (18% versus 11%) causing PJI was found in the RA patients compared to OA. There were no bacteria of potential odontogenic origin found in the RA patients, while we found 4% in OA. The bacteria identified in revisions for infection in THRs in patients with RA did not significantly differ from those in OA. Bacteria of oral or dental origin were not found in infected hip joint replacements in RA

Operating room ventilation and the risk of revision due to infection after total hip arthroplasty: assessment of validated data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

Background The air in the operating room is considered a risk factor for surgical site infection (SSI) due to airborne bacteria shed from the surgical staff or from patients themselves. Aim To assess the influence of validated operating room (OR) ventilation data on the risk of revision surgery due to deep infection after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR). Methods Forty orthopaedic units reporting THAs to the NAR during the period 2005–2015 were included. The true type of OR ventilation in all hospitals at the time of primary THA was confirmed in a previous study. Unidirectional airflow (UDF) systems were subdivided into: small, low-volume, unidirectional vertical flow (lvUDVF) systems; large, high-volume, unidirectional vertical flow (hvUDVF) systems; and unidirectional horizontal flow (UDHF) systems. These three ventilation groups were compared with conventional, turbulent, mixing ventilation (CV). The association between the end-point, time to revision due to infection, and OR ventilation was estimated by calculating relative risks (RRs) in a multivariate Cox regression model, with adjustments for several patient- and surgery-related covariates. Findings A total of 51,292 primary THAs were eligible for assessment. Of these, 575 had been revised due to infection. A similar risk of revision due to infection after THA performed was found in ORs with lvUDVF and UDHF compared to CV. THAs performed in ORs with hvUDVF had lower risk of revision due to infection compared to CV (RR = 0.8; 95% CI: 0.6–0.9; P = 0.01). Conclusion THAs performed in ORs with hvUDVF systems had lower risk of revision due to infection compared to THAs performed in ORs with CV systems. The perception that all UDF systems are similar and possibly harmful seems erroneous

Operating room ventilation and the risk of revision due to infection after total hip arthroplasty: assessment of validated data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

Background The air in the operating room is considered a risk factor for surgical site infection (SSI) due to airborne bacteria shed from the surgical staff or from patients themselves. Aim To assess the influence of validated operating room (OR) ventilation data on the risk of revision surgery due to deep infection after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR). Methods Forty orthopaedic units reporting THAs to the NAR during the period 2005–2015 were included. The true type of OR ventilation in all hospitals at the time of primary THA was confirmed in a previous study. Unidirectional airflow (UDF) systems were subdivided into: small, low-volume, unidirectional vertical flow (lvUDVF) systems; large, high-volume, unidirectional vertical flow (hvUDVF) systems; and unidirectional horizontal flow (UDHF) systems. These three ventilation groups were compared with conventional, turbulent, mixing ventilation (CV). The association between the end-point, time to revision due to infection, and OR ventilation was estimated by calculating relative risks (RRs) in a multivariate Cox regression model, with adjustments for several patient- and surgery-related covariates. Findings A total of 51,292 primary THAs were eligible for assessment. Of these, 575 had been revised due to infection. A similar risk of revision due to infection after THA performed was found in ORs with lvUDVF and UDHF compared to CV. THAs performed in ORs with hvUDVF had lower risk of revision due to infection compared to CV (RR = 0.8; 95% CI: 0.6–0.9; P = 0.01). Conclusion THAs performed in ORs with hvUDVF systems had lower risk of revision due to infection compared to THAs performed in ORs with CV systems. The perception that all UDF systems are similar and possibly harmful seems erroneous

Operating room ventilation-Validation of reported data on 108 067 primary total hip arthroplasties in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

Rationale, aims, and objectives: The true effect of laminar airflow (LAF) systems on postoperative infection is disputed, partly due to uncertainty regarding the validity of ventilation data in register studies. The aim of this study was to validate the information on operating room (OR) ventilation reported by the orthopaedic surgeons to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Method: Forty of the 62 public orthopaedic units performing primary THA in Norway during the period 1987‐2015 were included. The hospitals' current and previous ventilation systems were evaluated in cooperation with the hospitals head engineer. We identified the type of ventilation system reported to the NAR and compared the information with the factual ventilation in the specific ORs at the time of primary THA. Results: A total of 108 067 primary THAs were eligible for assessment. None of the hospitals performed THA in true “greenhouse” (GH) ventilation. Fifty‐seven percent of the primary THAs were performed in ORs with LAF and 43% in ORs with conventional, turbulent ventilation (CV). Comparing the reported data with the validated data, LAF was reported with a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 89%, and positive predictive value (PPV) of 92%, with an accuracy of 88%. CV was reported with a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 87%, and PPV of 84%, with an accuracy of 88%. The total, mean misreporting rate was 12%. Conclusions: Surgeons were not fully aware of what kind of ventilation system they operated in. This study indicates that conclusions based on ventilation data reported on THA in the NAR should not be interpreted without considering the inaccuracy of the data

Operating room ventilation-Validation of reported data on 108 067 primary total hip arthroplasties in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

Rationale, aims, and objectives: The true effect of laminar airflow (LAF) systems on postoperative infection is disputed, partly due to uncertainty regarding the validity of ventilation data in register studies. The aim of this study was to validate the information on operating room (OR) ventilation reported by the orthopaedic surgeons to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Method: Forty of the 62 public orthopaedic units performing primary THA in Norway during the period 1987‐2015 were included. The hospitals' current and previous ventilation systems were evaluated in cooperation with the hospitals head engineer. We identified the type of ventilation system reported to the NAR and compared the information with the factual ventilation in the specific ORs at the time of primary THA. Results: A total of 108 067 primary THAs were eligible for assessment. None of the hospitals performed THA in true “greenhouse” (GH) ventilation. Fifty‐seven percent of the primary THAs were performed in ORs with LAF and 43% in ORs with conventional, turbulent ventilation (CV). Comparing the reported data with the validated data, LAF was reported with a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 89%, and positive predictive value (PPV) of 92%, with an accuracy of 88%. CV was reported with a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 87%, and PPV of 84%, with an accuracy of 88%. The total, mean misreporting rate was 12%. Conclusions: Surgeons were not fully aware of what kind of ventilation system they operated in. This study indicates that conclusions based on ventilation data reported on THA in the NAR should not be interpreted without considering the inaccuracy of the data.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