Do Cultures Obtained During Primary THA Predict the Likelihood of Revision?

Abstract Background There can be unexpectedly positive culture results during elective hip arthroplasty, but the degree to which these are associated with an increased risk of subsequent premature revision is not known. Question/purpose Are unexpectedly positive culture results obtained during elective THA associated with an increased likelihood of revision within 5 years of the procedure? Methods Between March 2007 and March 2011, the hip unit at our institution performed elective primary THA in 829 patients. We systematically collected three samples in 52% (428 of 829) of the interventions. Of those, 26 patients were excluded because of sampling errors; 94% (402 of 428) had samples that were collected systematically and were eligible for the study. We only considered one hip randomly in bilateral procedures (4% [15 of 428]); patients presenting with acute (< 3 months) periprosthetic joint infection undergoing open debridement (4% [16 of 402]) and patients who died before 5 years of follow-up (2% [seven of 402]) were excluded from the study, leaving 91% (364 of 402) eligible for analysis in this retrospective study of a previous prospective trial. No patient included in the final analysis was lost to follow-up within 5 years from the index surgery. The patient group consisted of 52% (188 of 364) women, with a mean ± SD age of 64.8 ± 13.9 years. Results Positives culture results were associated with a higher risk of revision within 5 years of the index surgery. The proportion of revision surgery was higher in the group with positive culture results than in those with negative results (10% [eight of 77] versus 2% [seven of 290]; p = 0.01). The difference was mainly attributable to a higher proportion of aseptic loosening in those with positive culture results than in those with negative results (8% [six of 74] versus 1% [four of 290]; p = 0.01). After a multivariable analysis, the only independent variable associated with 5-year revision surgery was the presence of positive results during THA (odds ratio 4.9 [95% confidence interval 1.72 to 13.99]). Conclusion Our findings suggest that bacterial contamination during THA is associated with an increased likelihood of early revision. This higher risk of revision is mainly because of presumed aseptic loosening; thus, efforts should focus on the need to rule out infection. These results not only open new questions that should be answered in new prospective and well-designed studies, but also may help to better select patients to obtain a more favorable outcome after THA. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

[1]  Á. Soriano,et al.  Prevalence and Impact of Positive Intraoperative Cultures in Partial Hip or Knee Revision. , 2020, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[2]  S. Overgaard,et al.  A Single Positive Tissue Culture Increases the Risk of Rerevision of Clinically Aseptic THA: A National Register Study. , 2019, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[3]  Hang Lee,et al.  The Impact of a Reported Penicillin Allergy on Surgical Site Infection Risk , 2017, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[4]  S. Cahue,et al.  Infection burden in total hip and knee arthroplasties: an international registry-based perspective , 2017, Arthroplasty today.

[5]  R. Windhager,et al.  Outcome of Total Hip and Total Knee Revision Arthroplasty With Minor Infection Criteria: A Retrospective Matched-Pair Analysis. , 2017, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[6]  W. Dhert,et al.  Missed low-grade infection in suspected aseptic loosening has no consequences for the survival of total hip arthroplasty , 2015, Acta orthopaedica.

[7]  L. Martínez-Martínez,et al.  26Postoperative diagnosis and outcome in patients with revision arthroplasty for aseptic loosening , 2015, BMC Infectious Diseases.

[8]  Á. Soriano,et al.  Clinical and microbiological findings in prosthetic joint replacement due to aseptic loosening. , 2014, The Journal of infection.

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

[10]  A. Leithner,et al.  Revision surgery after total joint arthroplasty: a complication-based analysis using worldwide arthroplasty registers. , 2013, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[11]  A. Alier,et al.  Prosthesis Failure Within 2 Years of Implantation Is Highly Predictive of Infection , 2013, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[12]  Á. Soriano,et al.  Relationship between Intraoperative Cultures during Hip Arthroplasty, Obesity, and the Risk of Early Prosthetic Joint Infection: A Prospective Study of 428 Patients , 2011, The International journal of artificial organs.

[13]  J. V. van Horn,et al.  Intraoperative Contamination Influences Wound Discharge and Periprosthetic Infection , 2006, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[14]  M. Smeltzer,et al.  Is aseptic loosening truly aseptic? , 2005, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

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

[16]  J. Zuckerman,et al.  The role of intraoperative frozen sections in revision total joint arthroplasty. , 1995, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[17]  R. Garibaldi,et al.  Risk factors for postoperative infection. , 1991, The American journal of medicine.