The Prevalence and Outcomes of Unexpected Positive Intraoperative Cultures in Presumed Aseptic Revision Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundThe prevalence and outcomes of unexpected positive intraoperative cultures (UPC) in presumed aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of UPC and infection-free implant survival in this patient population. Secondly, we aimed to compare the infection-free implant survival between cohorts based on number of UPCs and antibiotic treatment.MethodsWe reviewed our institutional database from 2006 to 2019 for all TKA revisions (n = 1795) to identify all presumed aseptic TKA revisions with intraoperative culture(s). After exclusions, 775 revisions were eligible and those with UPC were included in the Kaplan-Meier analysis to determine infection-free implant survival for the cohorts.ResultsThe prevalence of UPC was 9.8%. The 2- and 5-year infection-free survival was 97.4% and 95.3%, respectively. The 5-year infection-free survival from the same microorganism as the UPC was 98.7%. Infection-free survival was similar for the 1 versus ≥2 UPC cohorts (P = .416), however was poorer for the cohort treated with antibiotics (P = .021). Only one of 3 subsequent PJI-related implant failures was caused by the same microorganism (polymicrobial) as the UPC. There were no subsequent infections in patients with a single UPC not treated with antibiotics.ConclusionsThe prevalence of UPC was 9.8% and the infection-free implant survival is excellent. Infection-free survivorship from PJI caused by the same UPC microorganism is outstanding. Comparisons between cohorts must be interpreted with caution due to study limitations. A single UPC in patents without other signs of infection does not require antibiotic treatment.Level of EvidenceIV.     

Reduced Infection Rate After Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty With Extended Oral Antibiotic Protocol

BackgroundThe optimal postoperative antibiotic duration has not been determined for aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty (R-TKA) where the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is 3%-7.5%. This study compared PJI rates in aseptic R-TKA performed with extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOAP) to published rates.MethodsAseptic R-TKAs consecutively performed between 2013 and 2017 at a tertiary care referral center in the American Midwest were retrospectively reviewed. All patients were administered intravenous antibiotics while hospitalized and discharged on 7-day oral antibiotic prophylaxis. Infection rates and antibiotic-related complications were assessed.ResultsSixty-seven percent of the 176 analysis patients were female, with an average age of 64 years and body mass index of 35 kg/m². Instability and aseptic loosening comprised 86% of revision diagnoses. Overall, 87.5% of intraoperative cultures were negative, and the remainder were single positive cultures considered contaminants. PJI rates were 0% at 90 days, 1.8% (95% confidence interval 0.4%-5.3%) at 1 year, and 2.2% (95% confidence interval 0.6%-5.7%) at mean follow-up of approximately 3 years (range, 7-65 months).ConclusionEOAP after aseptic R-TKA resulted in a PJI rate equivalent to primary TKA, representing a 2- to-4-fold decrease compared with published aseptic R-TKA infection rates. Further study on the benefits and costs of EOAP after aseptic R-TKA is encouraged.     

Intraoperative Fracture During Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

Bone encountered during revision knee arthroplasty is compromised and predisposed to fracture. This study reports the rate, location, timing, treatment, and outcome of intraoperative fractures occurring during revision knee arthroplasty. Between 1997 and 2011, 2836 aseptic revisions were performed. Ninety-seven fractures were identified in 89 patients (3%). Fifty occurred in femora, 42 in tibiae, and 5 in patellae. Forty-six occurred during exposure, 21 during bony preparation, 17 during trialing, and 13 during final component placement. Treatment included fixation (n = 43), observation (n = 21), component build-up (n = 17), bone grafting (n = 6), and a combination (n = 3). Ninety-four percent of fractures united. Fifteen patients required a re-revision (17%), of which infection was the leading cause (n = 5).     

Risk of Prosthetic Joint Infection Increases Following Early Aseptic Revision Surgery of Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundIt is important to identify risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total joint arthroplasty in order to mitigate the substantial social and economic burden. The objective of this study is to evaluate early aseptic revision surgery as a potential risk factor for PJI following total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsPatients who underwent primary THA or TKA with early aseptic revision were identified in 2 national insurance databases. Control groups of patients who did not undergo revision were identified and matched 10:1 to study patients. Rates of PJI at 1 and 2 years postoperatively following revision surgery were calculated and compared to controls using a logistic regression analysis.ResultsIn total, 328 Medicare and 222 Humana patients undergoing aseptic revision THA within 1 year of index THA were found to have significantly increased risk of PJI at 1 year (5.49% vs 0.91%, odds ratio [OR] 5.61, P < .001 for Medicare; 7.21% vs 0.68%, OR 11.34, P < .001 for Humana) and 2 years (5.79% vs 1.10%, OR 4.79, P < .001 for Medicare; 8.11% vs 1.04%, OR 9.05, P < .001 for Humana). Similarly for TKA, 190 Medicare and 226 Humana patients who underwent aseptic revision TKA within 1 year were found to have significantly higher rates of PJI at 1 year (6.48% vs 1.16%, OR 7.69, P < .001 for Medicare; 6.19% vs 1.28%, OR 4.89, P < .001 for Humana) and 2 years (8.42% vs 1.58%, OR 6.57, P < .001 for Medicare; 7.08% vs 1.50%, OR 4.50, P < .001 for Humana).ConclusionEarly aseptic revision surgery following THA and TKA is associated with significantly increased risks of subsequent PJI within 2 years.     

Prevalence and Impact of Positive Intraoperative Cultures in Partial Hip or Knee Revision

BackgroundOur aim is to investigate the impact of unexpected positive cultures on the outcome of partial prosthetic revisions.MethodsData regarding patients who underwent a partial hip or knee revision from 2003 and 2012 with the preoperative diagnosis of aseptic loosening was retrospectively reviewed. The protocol of revision included at least 3 intraoperative cultures. Failure was defined as the need for re-revision due to aseptic or septic loosening at 5 years.ResultsA total of 99 hip and 46 knee partial revisions were included. All cases had at least 5 years of follow-up. Ninety-seven cases (66.9%) had all cultures negative, 35 (24.1%) a single positive culture and 13 (9.0%) ≥2 positive cultures for the same microorganism. The median time from primary arthroplasty to partial revision was significantly shorter for patients with ≥2 positive cultures (26 months) than in those with all cultures negative (48 months) or with a single positive culture (51 months). Partial revisions performed within the first 5 years of implantation had a higher 5-year re-revision rate. The presence of a single positive culture during the partial exchange was not associated with a higher re-revision rate (2 of 35, 5.7%) than in those with negative cultures (3 of 97, 3.1%). On the contrary, re-revision rate was significantly higher in cases with ≥2 positive cultures (3 of 13, 23.1%) than in those with negative cultures (P = .02).ConclusionPartial revisions performed within the first 5 years from implantation and ≥2 intraoperative positive cultures were associated with a higher re-revision risk at 5 years.     

Dilute Betadine Lavage Reduces the Risk of Acute Postoperative Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Aseptic Revision Total Knee and Hip Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BackgroundThe purpose of this randomized, controlled trial is to determine whether dilute betadine lavage compared to normal saline lavage reduces the rate of acute postoperative periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in aseptic revision total knee (TKA) and hip arthroplasty (THA).MethodsA total of 478 patients undergoing aseptic revision TKA and THA were randomized to receive a 3-minute dilute betadine lavage (0.35%) or normal saline lavage before surgical wound closure. Fifteen patients were excluded following randomization (3.1%) and six were lost to follow-up (1.3%), leaving 457 patients available for study. Of them, 234 patients (153 knees, 81 hips) received normal saline lavage and 223 (144 knees, 79 hips) received dilute betadine lavage. The primary outcome was PJI within 90 days of surgery with a secondary assessment of 90-day wound complications. A priori power analysis determined that 285 patients per group were needed to detect a reduction in the rate of PJI from 5% to 1% with 80% power and alpha of 0.05.ResultsThere were eight infections in the saline group and 1 in the betadine group (3.4% vs 0.4%, P = .038). There was no difference in wound complications between groups (1.3% vs 0%, P = .248). There were no differences in any baseline demographics or type of revision procedure between groups, suggesting appropriate randomization.ConclusionDilute betadine lavage before surgical wound closure in aseptic revision TKA and THA appears to be a simple, safe, and effective measure to reduce the risk of acute postoperative PJI.Level of EvidenceLevel I.     

Unexpected Positive Cultures in Patients Who Have a History of Septic Revision in the Same Joint

BackgroundThe prevalence of unexpected positive cultures (UPC) in an aseptic revision surgery of the joint with a prior septic revision in the same joint remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of UPC in that specific group. As secondary outcomes, we explored risk factors for UPC.MethodsThis retrospective study includes patients who had an aseptic revision total hip/knee arthroplasty procedure with a prior septic revision in the same joint. Patients who had less than 3 microbiology samples, without joint aspiration or with aseptic revision surgery performed <3 weeks after a septic revision were excluded. The UPC was defined as a single positive culture in a revision that the surgeon had classified as aseptic according to the 2018 International Consensus Meeting. After excluding 47, a total of 92 patients were analyzed, who had a mean age of 70 years (range, 38 to 87). There were 66 (71.7%) hips and 26 (28.3%) knees. The mean time between revisions was 83 months (range, 31 to 212).ResultsWe identified 11 (12%) UPC and in 3 cases there was a concordance of the bacteria compared to the previous septic surgery. There were no differences for UPC between hips/knees (P = .282), diabetes (P = .701), immunosuppression (P = .252), previous 1-stage or 2-stages (P = .316), causes for the aseptic revision (P = .429) and time after the septic revision (P = .773).ConclusionThe prevalence of UPC in this specific group was similar to those reported in the literature for aseptic revisions. More studies are needed to better interpret the results.     

Extended Antibiotic Prophylaxis Confers No Benefit Following Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Matched Case-Controlled Study

BackgroundAdministration of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is one of the most important practices for prevention of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). It is common to continue perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for 48 hours or longer in patients undergoing revision arthroplasty, until results of intraoperative culture samples become available. However, the utility of this practice remains unclear. We examined whether extended antibiotic prophylaxis following aseptic revision THA reduces the risk of subsequent PJI.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed records of patients undergoing aseptic revision THA between January 2000 and December 2015. At our institution, some surgeons administer prophylactic antibiotics to revision patients for only 24 hours while others prefer to extend until intraoperative culture results become available. We matched 209 patients undergoing revision THA who received extended antibiotic prophylaxis (>24 hours) in a 1:1 ratio with 209 patients receiving standard antibiotic prophylaxis (≤24 hours). The matching criteria were age, sex, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, and operative time.ResultsThe incidence of subsequent PJI was 4.8% in patients receiving extended antibiotic prophylaxis vs 2.4% in patients receiving standard. After adjusting for all cofounders and using multivariate logistic regression, the administration of extended prophylactic antibiotics did not reduce the incidence of subsequent infection. When stratified by postoperative antibiotic regimens, the 2 groups had similar infection-free implant survival rate (95.2% in extended and 97.6% in standard).ConclusionIt appears that extending perioperative prophylactic antibiotics until intraoperative culture results become available in patients undergoing revision THA for aseptic failures does not provide any additional benefit in terms of reducing the risk of subsequent PJI.     

Positive Cultures Can Be Safely Ignored in Revision Arthroplasty Patients That Do Not Meet the 2018 International Consensus Meeting Criteria

BackgroundDuring aseptic revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA), one or more cultures may occasionally isolate an organism. The hypothesis of this study was that in a portion of patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for aseptic failure, culture may isolate an organism(s) that can be left untreated.MethodsAll patients undergoing revision TJA from 2000 to 2017 at two institutions were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized as aseptic if they were appropriately investigated preoperatively and did not meet the 2018 International Consensus Meeting criteria. In the aseptic revision cohort, patients with a single positive culture or multiple cultures positive for different organisms (“organism-positive”) and patients who had negative intraoperative cultures (“organism-negative”) were compared based on demographics, comorbidities, operative details, subsequent reoperations, and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).ResultsIn total, 3,234 International Consensus Meeting–negative aseptic revision TJAs were included, of which 215 patients (6.6%) were organism-positive, 196 (91.2%) had a single positive culture, and 19 (8.8%) were positive for 2 or more distinct organisms (ie, polymicrobial). The most prevalent organisms were coagulase-negative Staphylococci (37.5%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (9.6%), and Cutibacterium acnes (8.0%). Demographics and operative details were comparable between the groups. Using multiple regressions there was no association between culture positivity and the rate of reoperation or PJI.ConclusionIsolation of organisms by culture in patients undergoing revision for aseptic failure was not uncommon. As long as these patients were appropriately investigated preoperatively and PJI was excluded, these findings suggest that culture results may be ignored without subjecting patients to additional antimicrobial treatment.     

Septic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With Significantly Higher Mortality Than Aseptic Revisions: Long-Term Single-Center Study (1254 Patients)

BackgroundThe aim of this study is to examine the differences in long-term mortality rates between septic and aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) in a single specialist center over 17-year period.MethodsRetrospective consecutive study of all patients who underwent rTKA at our tertiary center between 2003 and 2019 was carried out. Revisions were classified as septic or aseptic. We identified patients’ age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, and body mass index. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 5 years, 10 years, and over the whole study period of 17 years. Death was identified through both local hospital electronic databases and linked data from the National Joint Registry/NHS Personal Demographic Service. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate time to death.ResultsIn total, 1298 consecutive knee revisions were performed on 1254 patients (44 bilateral revisions) with 985 aseptic revisions in 945 patients (75.4%) and 313 septic revisions in 309 patients (24.6%). Average age was 70.6 years (range 27-95) with 720 females (57.4%). Septic revisions had higher mortality rates; patients’ survivorship for septic vs aseptic revisions was 77.6% vs 89.5% at 5 years, 68.7% vs 80.2% at 10 years, and 66.1% vs 75.0% at 17 years; these differences were all statistically significant (P < .0001). The unadjusted 10-year risk ratio of death after septic revision was 1.59 (95% confidence interval 1.29-1.96) compared to aseptic revisions.ConclusionrTKA performed for infection is associated with significantly higher long-term mortality at all time points compared with aseptic revision surgery.Level of EvidenceLevel IV.     

Aseptic Reoperations Within 1 Year of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Markedly Increase the Risk of Later Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BackgroundDespite the high rate of success of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), some patients are candidates for early aseptic reoperation. The goal of this study is to evaluate the risk of subsequent periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients treated with an aseptic reoperation within 1 year of primary TKA.MethodsA retrospective review of our total joint registry compared 249 primary TKAs requiring an aseptic reoperation within 1 year following index arthroplasty to a control group of 17,867 TKAs not requiring reoperation within 1 year. Patients were divided into groups based on time from index TKA: (1) 90 days or less (114 TKAs) and (2) 91 to 365 days (135 TKAs). Mean age was 68 years with 57% female. Mean follow-up was 7 years.ResultsAt 2 years postoperatively, patients undergoing an aseptic reoperation within 90 days subsequently had a 9% PJI rate, while patients undergoing an aseptic reoperation between 91 and 365 days subsequently had a 3% PJI rate. The control group had a 0.4% PJI rate. Compared to the control group, patients undergoing an aseptic reoperation within 90 days had an elevated risk of PJI (hazard ratio, 9; P < .0001), as did patients who had a reoperation between 91 and 365 days (hazard ratio, 4; P < .0001).ConclusionAseptic reoperation within 1 year of primary TKA was associated with a notably increased risk of subsequent PJI.     

Revision Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasties After Solid Organ Transplant

Background

As solid organ transplant (SOT) patients' survival improves, the number undergoing total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is increasing. Accordingly, the number of revision procedures in this higher-risk group is also increasing. The goals of this study were to identify the most common failure mechanisms, associated complications, clinical outcomes, and patient survivorship of SOT patients after revision THA or TKA.

Etiology and Complications of Early Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Within 90 Days

BackgroundThe etiology, complications, and rerevision risks of early aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) within 90 days are insufficiently documented.MethodsA national insurance claims database (PearlDiver Technologies, Fort Wayne, IN) was queried for patients who underwent unilateral aseptic revision THA within 90 days of the index procedure using administrative codes. Patients who underwent revision for infection, without minimum 2-year follow-up, and younger than 18 years were excluded. This cohort was matched based on gender, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index to a control group of patients who underwent primary THA without revision within 90 days. Two-year rerevision and 90-day complication rates were recorded. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used as appropriate for statistical comparison.ResultsFour hundred two patients met the inclusion criteria for early aseptic revision within 90 days of the index procedure and were matched to the control group. The overall 2-year rerevision rate was higher in the early revision group compared with control group (14.9% vs 2.5%, P < .001). Complications within 90 days occurred more frequently in the early revision group, including blood transfusion (10.2% vs 3.2%, P < .001), deep vein thrombosis (9.0% vs 3.2%, P = .001), and pulmonary embolism (2.74% vs 0.75%, P = .031). The most common reasons for early aseptic revision were dislocation (41.5%), fracture (38.1%), and loosening (17.4%).ConclusionEarly aseptic revision THA is associated with significantly higher 90-day complication rates and 2-year rerevision rates compared with a control group of primary THA without revision. The most common reasons for acute early revision were dislocation, fracture, and mechanical loosening.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Removed Antibiotic-Impregnated Cement Spacers in Two-Stage Revision Joint Arthroplasty Do Not Show Biofilm Formation In Vivo

Use of antibiotic-impregnated spacers is common in the two-stage approach to treatment of periprosthetic joint infection despite the lack of information regarding in vivo performance of these implants. Antibiotic elution levels likely often fall below the minimal inhibitory concentration need to inhibit bacterial growth, raising concern that the spacers themselves may provide a potential attachment site for biofilm formation. Advanced microscopy was used in this study to evaluate the surface characteristics of antibiotic-eluting spacers collected at the time of prosthesis reimplantation from 6 patients undergoing two-stage treatment for an infected total joint arthroplasty. Scanning electron microscopy and confocal scanning microscopy of the removed spacers revealed modest fibrous matrix formation and inflammatory cells with no biofilm or bacteria detected. This study supports the continued use of antibiotic spacers in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection.     

Correlation of Aspiration Results With Aseptic Loosening in Total Hip Arthroplasty

In the evaluation of patients with a persistently painful total hip arthroplasty establishing an accurate diagnosis is paramount in the selection of a successful treatment regimen. It is unknown whether synovial analysis might differentiate aseptic loosening from other causes of failure. A physiological basis exists to suggest that aseptic loosening might be a process of non-segmented leukocytes. The objective of this study was to determine if the synovial fluid differential cell count might aid in the diagnosis of aseptic loosening. A retrospective chart review of all patients who had undergone revision hip arthroplasty with pre-operative or intra-operative aspiration results was performed. Aseptic loosening was defined as gross intraoperative movement in the absence of infection. From these results Relative-Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were created, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. A diagnosis of aseptic loosening was established in 76 of the 253 hips. The ROC curves indicated that lymphocyte count does have utility in the diagnosis of aseptic loosening. If an aspirate has a combination of fewer than 2500 WBCs (sensitivity 93%, specificity 42%, NPV 94%, accuracy 57%) or more than 10% lymphocytes (sensitivity 86%, specificity 42%, NPV 87%, accuracy 55%) then the sensitivity for aseptic loosening is 96%, the specificity is 33%, the NPV is 95% and the accuracy is 52%. In patients with painful total hip arthroplasties in whom infection has been excluded, aspiration data can be a useful adjunct in the diagnosis of aseptic loosening. In aspirates with neither a WBC cell count of less than 2500 nor a lymphocyte cell count of greater than 10% aseptic loosening can be effectively “ruled out” as fewer than 5% of these patients will have aseptic loosening. While non-specific, aspirate differential can be useful to “rule-out” aseptic loosening with a sensitivity and negative predictive value well exceeding that of standard radiographs.     

Functional and Emotional Results Differ After Aseptic vs Septic Revision Hip Arthroplasty

Background  

It is widely believed that a deep implant infection leads to poor functional and emotional outcomes following total hip arthroplasty.     

Isolated Versus Full Component Revision in Total Knee Arthroplasty for Aseptic Loosening

BackgroundRevision of both femoral and tibial components of a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for aseptic loosening has favorable outcomes. Revision of only one loose component with retention of others has shorter operative time and lower cost; however, implant survivorship and clinical outcomes of these different operations are unclear.MethodsBetween January 2009 and December 2019, a consecutive cohort of revision TKA was reviewed. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to study correlations among factors and surgical related complications, time to prosthesis failure, and functional outcomes (University of California Los Angeles, Knee Society functional, knee osteoarthritis and outcome score for joint replacement, Veterans RAND 12 (VR-12) physical, and VR-12 mental).ResultsA total of 238 patients underwent revision TKA for aseptic loosening. The mean follow-up time was 61 months (range 25 to 152). Ten of the 105 patients (9.5%) who underwent full revision (both femoral and tibial components) and 18 of the 133 (13.5%) who underwent isolated revision had subsequent prosthesis failure [Hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, P = .343]. The factor analysis of type of revision (full or isolated revision) did not demonstrate a significant difference between groups in terms of complications, implant failures, and times to failure. Metallosis was related to early time to failure [Hazard ratio 10.11, P < .001] and iliotibial band release was associated with more complications (Odds ratio 9.87, P = .027). Preoperative symptoms of instability were associated with the worst improvement in University of California Los Angeles score. Higher American Society of Anesthesiologists status and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index were related with worse VR-12 physical (?30.5, P = .008) and knee osteoarthritis and outcome score for joint replacement (?4.2, P = .050) scores, respectively.ConclusionIsolated and full component revision TKA for aseptic loosening does not differ with respect to prosthesis failures, complications, and clinical results at 5 years. Poor American Society of Anesthesiologists status, increased comorbidities, instability, and a severe bone defect are related to worse functional improvement.Level of evidenceIII, cohort with control.     

Correlation of Aspiration Results With Periprosthetic Sepsis in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients who had undergone revision total hip arthroplasty with a synovial aspiration with greater than 100 WBC since the institution of our electronic medical record. Infection was defined using a combination of criteria. A diagnosis of periprosthetic sepsis was established in 52 of the 253 included hips. No significant differences existed with respect to gender, age, BMI, Deyo–Charlson Comorbidity Index, or the cause of initial hip degeneration. Using receiver-operating characteristic curves accuracy was maximized for WBC of 745 or segmented cell count of 73.5% with a sensitivity of 98%, specificity of 37%, negative predictive value of 99% and accuracy of 50%. Application of the current American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery Clinical Practice Guidelines (AAOS CPG) thresholds revealed a similar accuracy of 49%.     

The Utility of Serum d-Dimer for the Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Revision Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundThere is scarce and contradicting evidence supporting the use of serum d-dimer for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection in revision total hip (THA) and knee (TKA) arthroplasty. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to test the accuracy of serum d-dimer against the 2013 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria.MethodsA retrospective review was performed on a consecutive series of 172 revision THA/TKA surgeries performed by 3 fellowship-trained surgeons at a single institution (August 2017 to May 2019) and that had d-dimer performed during their preoperative workup. Of this cohort, 111 (42 THAs/69 TKAs) cases had complete 2013 ICM criteria tests and were included in the final analysis. Septic and aseptic revisions were categorized per 2013 ICM criteria (“gold standard”) and compared against serum d-dimer using an established threshold (850 ng/mL). Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and positive/negative predictive values were determined. Independent t-tests, Fisher’s exact tests, chi-squared tests, and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were performed.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference in baseline demographics between septic and aseptic cases per 2013 ICM criteria. When compared to ICM criteria, d-dimer demonstrated high sensitivity (95.9%) and negative predictive value (90.9%) but low specificity (32.3%), positive predictive value (52.8%), and overall, poor accuracy (61%) to diagnose periprosthetic joint infection. Positive likelihood ratio was 1.42 while negative likelihood ratio was 0.13. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.742.ConclusionSerum d-dimer has poor accuracy to discriminate between septic and aseptic cases using a described threshold in the setting of revision THA and TKA.     

Impact of COVID-19 Protocols on Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundSurgical site infection (SSI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare expenditures. Our institution intensified hygiene standards during the COVID-19 pandemic; hospital staff exercised greater hand hygiene, glove use, and mask compliance. We examined the effect of these factors on SSI rates for primary THA (pTHA) and revision THA (rTHA).MethodsA retrospective review was performed identifying THA from January 2019 to June 2021 at a single institution. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared before (January 2019 to February 2020) and during (May 2020 to June 2021) the COVID-19 pandemic and during the first (May 2020 to November 2020) and second (December 2020 to June 2021) periods of the pandemic. Cohorts were compared using the Chi-squared test and independent samples t-test.ResultsA total of 2,682 pTHA (prepandemic: 1,549 [57.8%]; pandemic: 1,133 [42.2%]) and 402 rTHA (prepandemic: 216 [53.7%]; Pandemic: 186 [46.2%]) were included. For primary and revision cases, superficial and deep SSI rates were similar before and during COVID-19. During COVID-19, the incidence of all (?0.43%, P = .029) and deep (?0.36%, P = .049) SSIs decreased between the first and second periods for rTHA. pTHA patients had longer operative times (P < .001) and shorter length of stay (P = .006) during COVID-19. Revision cases had longer operative times (P = .004) and length of stay (P = .046). Both pTHA and rTHA were discharged to skilled nursing facilities less frequently during COVID-19.ConclusionDuring COVID-19, operative times were longer in both pTHA and rTHA and patients were less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility. Although intensified hygienic standards may lower SSI rates, infection rates did not significantly differ after our hospital implemented personal protective guidelines and a mask mandate.