Multiple deep tissue cultures in primary total hip arthroplasty: prognostic value for periprosthetic infection

Background: The risk of infection after total hip replacement (THR) is significant, with negative impact on quality of life and high costs. Bacteria can contaminate the surgical site despite aseptic techniques; however, there is debate regarding the benefit of identifying bacteria during the primary procedure. Although taking multiple samples for culture is a well-established practice in revision arthroplasty, doing so in primary cases remains controversial. We aimed to investigate whether there is a prognostic value in the culture of samples taken during primary THR, seeking a correlation between the positivity of the cultures and subsequent prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods: Deep samples (capsule, femoral and acetabular bone) were collected from 426 patients undergoing elective primary THR. Follow-up was at least 3 years. Microbiological profiles of cultures were analysed. Patient data were reviewed for the identification of risk factors presumably associated with a higher risk of PJI. Results: 54 surgeries (12.6%) had positive cultures. 16 cases (3.8%) developed infection, of which 5 had a positive culture in the primary surgery. Infection rate was 9.3% in patients with positive culture and 3% in those with negative culture (p < 0.05), with an odds ratio of 3.34 (95% CI, 1.09–10.24). Patients with previous hip surgery had an infection rate of 8.5%, compared to 2.9% in patients with no previous surgery (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Routinely harvesting microbiologic samples in primary THR is not justified, as it has no consequence in clinical decision for most patients. It might be recommended in selected cases that are suspected to be at high risk for infection, especially previously operated patients (conversion arthroplasty).

[1]  J. Parvizi,et al.  The Journey of Cultures Taken During Revision Joint Arthroplasty: Preanalytical Phase , 2019, Journal of bone and joint infection.

[2]  H. Miyahara,et al.  Social profile and cost analysis of deep infection following total hip replacement surgery , 2017, Revista brasileira de ortopedia.

[3]  Helder de Souza Miyahara,et al.  Perfil social e análise de custo da infecção pós-operatória da artroplastia total do quadril , 2017 .

[4]  Michael A Mont,et al.  Periprosthetic joint infection , 2016, The Lancet.

[5]  E. C. Maziero,et al.  Caracterização de artroplastias de quadril e joelho e fatores associados à infecção , 2015 .

[6]  Eliane Cristina Sanches Maziero,et al.  Characterization of hip and knee arthroplasties and factors associated with infection☆ , 2015, Revista brasileira de ortopedia.

[7]  J. Parvizi,et al.  Definition of periprosthetic joint infection. , 2014, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[8]  B. Mogensen,et al.  Bacterial contamination of the wound during primary total hip and knee replacement , 2014, Acta orthopaedica.

[9]  J. Parvizi,et al.  Swab Cultures Are Not As Effective As Tissue Cultures for Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection , 2013, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[10]  J. Parvizi,et al.  New Definition for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: From the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society , 2011, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[11]  T. Guehring,et al.  Intraoperative subcutaneous wound closing culture sample: a predicting factor for periprosthetic infection after hip- and knee-replacement? , 2011, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[12]  E. J. O. von Dolinger,et al.  Surgical site infections in primary total hip and knee replacement surgeries, hemiarthroplasties, and osteosyntheses at a Brazilian university hospital. , 2010, American Journal of Infection Control.

[13]  Elhadi Sariali,et al.  Total hip arthroplasty revision due to infection: a cost analysis approach. , 2010, Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR.

[14]  M. Assal,et al.  Low incidence of haematogenous seeding to total hip and knee prostheses in patients with remote infections. , 2009, The Journal of infection.

[15]  G. Petsatodis,et al.  Prognostic value of suction drain tip culture in determining joint infection in primary and non-infected revision total hip arthroplasty: a prospective comparative study and review of the literature , 2009, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[16]  C. Picado,et al.  Accuracy of intraoperative cultures in primary total hip arthroplasty , 2008 .

[17]  O. P. Camargo,et al.  Prospective study of the treatment of infected hip arthroplasties with or without the use of an antibiotic-loaded cement spacer. , 2010, Clinics.

[18]  J. Hodgkinson,et al.  Bacteriology swab in primary total hip arthroplasty – does it have a role? , 2006, International journal of clinical practice.

[19]  P. Weinrauch Diagnostic value of routine drain tip culture in primary joint arthroplasty , 2005, ANZ journal of surgery.

[20]  P. Gregg,et al.  Bacterial contaminants and antibiotic prophylaxis in total hip arthroplasty. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[21]  J. Lentino Prosthetic joint infections: bane of orthopedists, challenge for infectious disease specialists. , 2003, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[22]  A. Gutow Intraoperative bacterial contamination in operations for joint replacement. , 2000, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[23]  S. Overgaard,et al.  Closed suction drainage after hip arthroplasty. Prospective study of bacterial contamination in 81 cases. , 1993, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[24]  K. Hardinge The direct lateral approach to the hip. , 1982, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[25]  R. Van Scoy,et al.  Bacterial colonization of wounds and sepsis in total hip arthroplasty. , 1973, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.