How good are surgeons at disclosing periprosthetic joint infection at the time of revision, based on pre- and intra-operative assessment? A study on 16,922 primary total hip arthroplasties reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Revision due to infection, as reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR), is a surrogate endpoint to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We aimed to find the accuracy of the reported causes of revision after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared with PJI to see how good surgeons were at disclosing infection, based on pre- and intraoperative assessment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We investigated the reasons for revision potentially caused by PJI following primary THA: infection, aseptic loosening, prolonged wound drainage, and pain only, reported to the NAR from surgeons in the region of Western Norway during the period 2010-2020. The electronic patient charts were investigated for information on clinical assessment, treatment, biochemistry, and microbiological findings. PJI was defined in accordance with the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) definition. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated. RESULTS: 363 revisions in the NAR were eligible for analyses. Causes of revision were (reported/validated): infection (153/177), aseptic loosening (139/133), prolonged wound drainage (37/13), and pain only (34/40). The sensitivity for reported revision due to infection compared with PJI was 80%, specificity was 94%, and accuracy-the surgeons' ability to disclose PJI or non-septic revision at time of revision-was 87%. The accuracy for the specific revision causes was highest for revision due to aseptic loosening (95%) and pain only (95%), and lowest for revision due to prolonged wound drainage (86%). CONCLUSION: The accuracy of surgeon-reported revisions due to infection as representing PJI was 87% in the NAR. Our study shows the importance of systematic correction of the reported cause of revision in arthroplasty registers, after results from adequately taken bacterial samples.

No difference in risk of revision due to infection between clindamycin and cephalosporins as antibiotic prophylaxis in cemented primary total knee replacements: a report from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 2005-2020.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis with clindamycin, which is often used in penicillin- or cephalosporin-allergic patients', has been associated with a higher risk of surgical revision for deep prosthetic joint infection (PJI) than cloxacillin in primary total knee replacement (TKR). We aimed to investigate whether clindamycin increases the risk of surgical revisions due to PJI compared with cephalosporins in primary cemented TKR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 59,081 TKRs in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) 2005-2020 was included. 2,655 (5%) received clindamycin and 56,426 (95%) received cephalosporins. Cox regression analyses were performed with adjustment for sex, age groups, diagnosis, and ASA score. Survival times were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared using Cox regression with revision for PJI as endpoint. The cephalosporins cefalotin and cefazolin were also compared. RESULTS: Of the TKRs included, 1.3% (n = 743) were revised for PJI. 96% (n = 713) had received cephalosporins and 4% (n = 30) clindamycin for perioperative prophylaxis. Comparing cephalosporins (reference) and clindamycin, at 3-month follow-up the adjusted hazard ratio rate (HRR) for PJI was 0.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-1.4), at 1 year 0.9 (CI 0.6-1.5), and at 5 years 0.9 (CI 0.6-1.4). Analysis using propensity score matching showed similar results. Furthermore, comparing cefalotin (reference) and cefazolin, HRR was 1.0 (CI 0.8-1.4) at 3 months and 1.0 (CI 0.7-1.3) at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: We found no difference in risk of revision for PJI when using clindamycin compared with cephalosporins in primary cemented TKRs. It appears safe to continue the use of clindamycin in penicillin- or cephalosporin-allergic patients.

Increasing risk of revision due to infection after primary total hip arthroplasty: results from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The incidence of periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA) may be increasing. We performed time-trend analyses of risk, rates, and timing of revision due to infection after primary THAs in the Nordic countries from the period 2004-2018. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 569,463 primary THAs reported to the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association from 2004 to 2018 were studied. Absolute risk estimates were calculated by Kaplan-Meier and cumulative incidence function methods, whereas adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) were assessed by Cox regression with the first revision due to infection after primary THA as primary endpoint. In addition, we explored changes in the time span from primary THA to revision due to infection. RESULTS: 5,653 (1.0%) primary THAs were revised due to infection during a median follow-up time of 5.4 (IQR 2.5-8.9) years after surgery. Compared with the period 2004-2008, the aHRs for revision were 1.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-1.5) for 2009-2013, and 1.9 (CI 1.7-2.0) for 2014-2018. The absolute 5-year rates of revision due to infection were 0.7% (CI 0.7-0.7), 1.0% (CI 0.9-1.0), and 1.2% (CI 1.2-1.3) for the 3 time periods respectively. We found changes in the time span from primary THA to revision due to infection. Compared with 2004-2008, the aHR for revision within 30 days after THA was 2.5 (CI 2.1-2.9) for 2009-2013, and 3.4 (CI 3.0-3.9) for 2013-2018. The aHR for revision within 31-90 days after THA was 1.5 (CI 1.3-1.9) for 2009-2013, and 2.5 (CI 2.1-3.0) for 2013-2018, compared with 2004-2008. CONCLUSION: The risk of revision due to infection after primary THA almost doubled, both in absolute cumulative incidence and in relative risk, throughout the period 2004-2018. This increase was mainly due to an increased risk of revision within 90 days of THA. This may reflect a "true" increase (i.e., frailer patients or more use of uncemented implants) and/or an "apparent" increase (i.e., improved diagnostics, changed revision strategy, or completeness of reporting) in incidence of periprosthetic joint infection. It is not possible to disclose such changes in the present study, and this warrants further research.

The use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and systemic antibiotic prophylactic use in 2,971,357 primary total knee arthroplasties from 2010 to 2020: an international register-based observational study among countries in Africa, Europe, North America, and Oceania.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) have been used to reduce periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates. We investigated the use of ALBC and SAP in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational study is based on 2,971,357 primary TKAs reported in 2010-2020 to national/regional joint arthroplasty registries in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA. Aggregate-level data on trends and types of bone cement, antibiotic agents, and doses and duration of SAP used was extracted from participating registries. RESULTS: ALBC was used in 77% of the TKAs with variation ranging from 100% in Norway to 31% in the USA. Palacos R+G was the most common (62%) ALBC type used. The primary antibiotic used in ALBC was gentamicin (94%). Use of ALBC in combination with SAP was common practice (77%). Cefazolin was the most common (32%) SAP agent. The doses and duration of SAP used varied from one single preoperative dosage as standard practice in Bolzano, Italy (98%) to 1-day 4 doses in Norway (83% of the 40,709 TKAs reported to the Norwegian arthroplasty register). CONCLUSION: The proportion of ALBC usage in primary TKA varies internationally, with gentamicin being the most common antibiotic. ALBC in combination with SAP was common practice, with cefazolin the most common SAP agent. The type of ALBC and type, dose, and duration of SAP varied among participating countries.

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 periodsInterpretation - 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.

Cemented or Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture? Data from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register.

BACKGROUND: A displaced femoral neck fracture in patients older than 70 years is a serious injury that influences the patient's quality of life and can cause serious complications or death. Previous national guidelines and a Cochrane review have recommended cemented fixation for arthroplasty to treat hip fractures in older patients, but data suggest that these guidelines are inconsistently followed in many parts of the world; the effects of that must be better characterized. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a large group of patients in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register to investigate whether the fixation method in hemiarthroplasty is associated with (1) the risk of reoperation; (2) the mortality rate; and (3) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: Longitudinally maintained registry data from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register with high completeness (93%) and near 100% followup of deaths were used for this report. From 2005 to 2017, 104,993 hip fractures were registered in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register. Fractures other than intracapsular femoral neck fractures and operative methods other than bipolar hemiarthroplasty, such as osteosynthesis or THA, were excluded. The selection bias risk on using cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty is small in Norway because the decision is usually regulated by tender processes at each hospital and not by surgeon. A total of 7539 uncemented hemiarthroplasties (70% women, mean age, 84 years [SD 6] years) and 22,639 cemented hemiarthroplasties (72% women, mean age, 84 years [SD 6] years) were eligible for analysis. Hazard risk ratio (HRR) on reoperation and mortality was calculated in a Cox regression model adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities (according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification), cognitive function, surgical approach, and duration of surgery. At 12 months postoperatively, 65% of patients answered questionnaires regarding pain and quality of life, the results of which were compared between the fixation groups. RESULTS: A higher overall risk of reoperation for any reason was found after uncemented hemiarthroplasty (HRR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.4-1.7; p < 0.001) than after cemented hemiarthroplasty. When assessing reoperations for specific causes, higher risks of reoperation because of periprosthetic fracture (HRR, 5.1; 95% CI, 3.5-7.5; p < 0.001) and infection (HRR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5; p = 0.037) were found for uncemented hemiarthroplasty than for cemented procedures. No differences were found in the overall mortality rate after 1 year (HRR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.9-1.0; p = 0.12). Hemiarthroplasty fixation type was not associated with differences in patients' pain (19 versus 20 for uncemented and cemented hemiarthroplasties respectively, p = 0.052) or quality of life (EuroQol [EQ]-VAS score 64 versus 64, p = 0.43, EQ5D index score 0.64 versus 0.63, p = 0.061) 1 year after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that the fixation method was not associated with differences in pain, quality of life, or the 1-year mortality rate after hemiarthroplasty. Uncemented hemiarthroplasties should not be used when treating elderly patients with hip fractures because there is an increased reoperation risk.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

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.

Perioperative, short-, and long-term mortality related to fixation in primary total hip arthroplasty: a study on 79,557 patients in the -Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

Background and purpose - There are reports on perioperative deaths in cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA), and THA revisions are associated with increased mortality. We compared perioperative (intraoperatively or within 3 days of surgery), short-term and long-term mortality after all-cemented, all-uncemented, reverse hybrid (cemented cup and uncemented stem), and hybrid (uncemented cup and cemented stem) THAs.Patients and methods - We studied THA patients in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from 2005 to 2018, and performed Kaplan-Meier and Cox survival analyses with time of death as end-point. Mortality was calculated for all patients, and in 3 defined risk groups: high-risk patients (age ≥ 75 years and ASA > 2), intermediate-risk patients (age ≥ 75 years or ASA > 2), low-risk patients (age < 75 years and ASA ≤ 2). We also calculated mortality in patients with THA due to a hip fracture, and in patients with commonly used, contemporary, well-documented THAs. Adjustement was made for age, sex, ASA class, indication, and year of surgery.Results - Among the 79,557 included primary THA patients, 11,693 (15%) died after 5.8 (0-14) years' follow-up. Perioperative deaths were rare (30/105) and found in all fixation groups. Perioperative mortality after THA was 4/105 in low-risk patients, 34/105 in intermediate-risk patients, and 190/105 in high-risk patients. High-risk patients had 9 (CI 1.3-58) times adjusted risk of perioperative death compared with low-risk patients. All 4 modes of fixation had similar adjusted 3-day, 30-day, 90-day, 3-30 day, 30-90 day, 90-day-10-year, and 10-year mortality risk.Interpretation - Perioperative, short-term, and long-term mortality after primary THA were similar, regardless of fixation type. Perioperative deaths were rare and associated with age and comorbidity, and not type of fixation.

Fixation, sex, and age: highest risk of revision for uncemented stems in elderly women - data from 66,995 primary total hip arthroplasties in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

Background and purpose - There is no consensus on best method of fixation in hip arthroplasty. We investigated different modes of fixation in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the influence of age and sex, to assess need for a differentiated approach.Patients and methods - The study was based on data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register in the period 2005-2017. Included were all-cemented, all-uncemented, reverse hybrid (uncemented stem and cemented cup), and hybrid (cemented stem and uncemented cup) THA designs that were commonly used, contemporary and well documented, using different causes of revision as endpoints.Results - From the included 66,995 primary THAs, 2,242 (3.3%) were revised. Compared with all-cemented THAs, all-uncemented had a higher risk of revision due to any cause (RR 1.4; CI 1.2-1.6), mainly due to an increased risk of periprosthetic fracture (RR 5.2; CI 3.2-8.5) and dislocation (RR 2.2; CI 1.5-3.0). Women had considerably higher risk of revision due to periprosthetic fracture after all-uncemented THA (RR 12; CI 6-25), compared with cemented. All-uncemented THAs in women of age 55-75 years (RR 1.3; CI 1.0-1.7) and over 75 years of age (RR 1.8; CI 1.2-2.7), and reverse hybrid THAs in women over the age of 75 (RR 1.5; CI 1.1-1.9) had higher risk of revision compared with cemented. Hybrid THAs (RR 1.0; CI 0.9-1.2) and reverse hybrid THAs (RR 1.0; CI 0.7-1.3) had similar risk of revision due to any cause as cemented THAs.Interpretation - Uncemented stems (all-uncemented and reverse hybrid THAs) had increased risk of revision in women over 55 years of age, mainly due to periprosthetic fracture and dislocation, and should probably not be used in THA in these patients.

Zoonotic necrotizing myositis caused by Streptococcus equi subsp. zooepidemicus in a farmer.

BACKGROUND: Streptococcus equi subsp. zooepidemicus is a beta-hemolytic group C streptococcus mainly causing infections in domesticated animals. Here we describe the first case of zoonotic necrotizing myositis caused by this bacterium. CASE PRESENTATION: The patient was a 73-year-old, previously healthy farmer with two asymptomatic Shetland ponies in his stable. After close contact with the ponies while feeding them, he rapidly developed erythema of his left thigh and sepsis with multiple organ failure. The clinical course was severe and complicated, requiring repetitive surgical excision of necrotic muscle, treatment with vasopressors, mechanical ventilation and continuous venovenous hemofiltration, along with adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen therapy. The patient was discharged from hospital at day 30, without obvious sequelae. The streptococcal isolate was identified as Streptococcus equi by MALDI-ToF MS, and was later assigned subspecies identification as S. equi subsp. zooepidemicus. Multilocus sequence typing identified the strain as a novel sequence type (ST 364), closely related to types previously identified in horses and cattle. A focused proteomic analysis revealed that the ST 364 expressed putative virulence factors similar to that of Streptococcus pyogenes, including homologues of the M protein, streptodornases, interleukin 8-protease and proteins involved in the biosynthesis of streptolysin S. CONCLUSION: This case illustrates the zoonotic potential of S. equi subsp. zooepidemicus and the importance of early clinical recognition, rapid and radical surgical therapy, appropriate antibiotics and adequate supportive measures when necrotizing soft tissue infection is suspected. The expression of Streptococcus pyogenes-like putative virulence determinants in ST 364 might partially explain the fulminant clinical picture.

Patient and surgical factors affecting procedure duration and revision risk due to deep infection in primary total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess which patient and procedure factors affected both the risk of infection as well as procedure duration. Additionally, to assess if procedure duration affected the revision risk due to deep infection in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients and in a subgroup of low-risk patients. METHODS: 28,262 primary TKA with 311 revisions due to deep infection were included from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) and analysed from primary surgery from 2005 until 31st December 2015 with a 1 and 4 year follow up. The risk of revision due to deep infection was calculated in a multivariable Cox regression model including patient and procedure related risk factors, assessing Hazard Ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Multivariate analysis showed statistically significant associations with revision due to deep infection and increased procedure duration for male patients, ASA3+ (American Society of Anesthesiologists) and perioperative complications. Procedure duration ≥110 min (75 percentile) had a higher risk of deep infection compared to duration <75 min (25 percentile), in the unadjusted analysis (HR = 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.5, p = 0.001) and in the adjusted analysis (HR = 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.1, p = 0.03). For low-risk patients, procedure duration did not increase the risk of infection. CONCLUSION: Male patients, ASA 3+ patients and perioperative complications were risk factors both for longer procedure duration and for deep infection revisions. Patients with a high degree of comorbidity, defined as ASA3+, are at risk of infection with longer procedure durations. The occurrence of perioperative complications potentially leading to a more complex and lengthy procedure was associated with a higher risk of infection. Long procedure duration in itself seems to have minor impact on infection since we found no association in the low-risk patient.

Is it feasible to merge data from national shoulder registries? A new collaboration within the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association.

BACKGROUND: The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association was initiated in 2007, and several papers about hip and knee arthroplasty have been published. Inspired by this, we aimed to examine the feasibility of merging data from the Nordic national shoulder arthroplasty registries by defining a common minimal data set. METHODS: A group of surgeons met in 2014 to discuss the feasibility of merging data from the national shoulder registries in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Differences in organization, definitions, variables, and outcome measures were discussed. A common minimal data set was defined as a set of variables containing only data that all registries could deliver and where consensus according to definition of the variables could be made. RESULTS: We agreed on a data set containing patient-related data (age, gender, and diagnosis), operative data (date, arthroplasty type and brand), and data in case of revision (date, reason for revision, and new arthroplasty brand). From 2004 to 2013, there were 19,857 primary arthroplasties reported. The most common indications were osteoarthritis (35%) and acute fracture (34%). The number of arthroplasties and especially the number of arthroplasties for osteoarthritis have increased in the study period. The most common arthroplasty type was total shoulder arthroplasty (34%) for osteoarthritis and stemmed hemiarthroplasty (90%) for acute fractures. CONCLUSION: We were able to merge data from the Nordic national registries into 1 common data set; however, the set of details was reduced. We found considerable differences between the 3 countries regarding incidence of shoulder arthroplasty, age, diagnoses, and choice of arthroplasty type and brand.

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.

Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty With or Without Antibiotic Bone Cement.

Importance: Despite increased use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in joint arthroplasty over recent decades, current evidence for prophylactic use of ALBC to reduce risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is insufficient. Objective: To compare the rate of revision attributed to PJI following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using ALBC vs plain bone cement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This international cohort study used data from 14 national or regional joint arthroplasty registries in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the UK, and the US. The study included primary TKAs for osteoarthritis registered from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020, and followed-up until December 31, 2021. Data analysis was performed from April to September 2023. Exposure: Primary TKA with ALBC vs plain bone cement. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was risk of 1-year revision for PJI. Using a distributed data network analysis method, data were harmonized, and a cumulative revision rate was calculated (1 - Kaplan-Meier), and Cox regression analyses were performed within the 10 registries using both cement types. A meta-analysis was then performed to combine all aggregated data and evaluate the risk of 1-year revision for PJI and all causes. Results: Among 2 168 924 TKAs included, 93% were performed with ALBC. Most TKAs were performed in female patients (59.5%) and patients aged 65 to 74 years (39.9%), fully cemented (92.2%), and in the 2015 to 2020 period (62.5%). All participating registries reported a cumulative 1-year revision rate for PJI of less than 1% following primary TKA with ALBC (range, 0.21%-0.80%) and with plain bone cement (range, 0.23%-0.70%). The meta-analyses based on adjusted Cox regression for 1 917 190 TKAs showed no statistically significant difference at 1 year in risk of revision for PJI (hazard rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.89-1.52) or for all causes (hazard rate ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.89-1.40) among TKAs performed with ALBC vs plain bone cement. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the risk of revision for PJI was similar between ALBC and plain bone cement following primary TKA. Any additional costs of ALBC and its relative value in reducing revision risk should be considered in the context of the overall health care delivery system.

Fracture-related infection: Prevalence and application of the new consensus definition in a cohort of 1004 surgically treated ankle fractures.

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of ankle fractures comes with a substantial risk of complications, including infection. An unambiguously definition of fracture-related infections (FRI) has been missing. Recently, FRI has been defined by a consensus group with a diagnostic algorithm containing suggestive and confirmatory criteria. The aim of the current study was to report the prevalence of FRI in patients operated for ankle fractures and to assess the applicability of the diagnostic algorithm from the consensus group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Records of all patients with surgically treated ankle fractures from 2015 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed for signs of postoperative infections. Patients with suspected infection were stratified according to confirmatory or suggestive criteria of FRI. Rate of FRI among patients with confirmatory and suggestive criteria were calculated. RESULTS: Suspected infection was found in 104 (10%) out of 1004 patients. Among those patients, confirmatory criteria were met in 76/104 (73%) patients and suggestive criteria were met in 28/104 (27%) at first evaluation. Patients with clinical confirmatory criteria (N = 76) were diagnosed with FRI. Patients with suggestive criteria were further examined with either bacterial sampling at the outpatient clinic, revision surgery including bacterial sampling, or a wait-and-see approach. Eleven (39%) of the 28 patients had positive cultures and were therefore diagnosed as having FRI at second evaluation. In total 87 (9%) patients were diagnosed with FRI according to the consensus definition. Only 73 (70%) of the 104 patients with suspected FRI had adequate bacterial sampling. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of FRI, applying the FRI-consensus criteria, for patients with surgically treated ankle fractures was 9%. Twenty-two percent of patients who met the confirmatory criteria had negative bacterial cultures. The current study shows that we did not have a systematic approach to patients with suspected FRI as recommended by the consensus group. A systematic approach to adequate bacterial sampling when FRI is suspected is paramount. The consensus definition of FRI and its diagnostic algorithm facilitates such an approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III - retrospective cohort study.

Risk factors for fracture-related infection after ankle fracture surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Ankle fracture surgery comes with a risk of fracture-related infection (FRI). Identifying risk factors are important in preoperative planning, in management of patients, and for information to the individual patient about their risk of complications. In addition, modifiable factors can be addressed prior to surgery. The aim of the current paper was to identify risk factors for FRI in patients operated for ankle fractures. METHODS: A cohort of 1004 patients surgically treated for ankle fractures at Haukeland University Hospital in the period of 2015-2019 was studied retrospectively. Patient charts and radiographs were assessed for the diagnosis of FRI. Binary logistic regression was used in analyses of risk factors. Regression coefficients were used to calculate the probability for FRI based on the patients' age and presence of one or more risk factors. RESULTS: FRI was confirmed in 87 (9%) of 1004 patients. Higher age at operation (p < .001), congestive heart failure (CHF), p = 0.006), peripheral artery disease (PAD, p = 0.001), and current smoking (p = .006) were identified as risk factors for FRI. PAD and CHF were the risk factors displaying the strongest association with FRI with an adjusted odds ratio of 4.2 (95% CI 1.8-10.1) and 4.7 (95% CI 1.6-14.1) respectively. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of FRI was 9% after surgical treatment of ankle fractures. The combination of risk factors found in this study demonstrate the need for a thorough, multidisciplinary, and careful approach when faced with an elderly or frail patient with an ankle fracture. The results of this study help the treating surgeons to inform their patients of the risk of FRI prior to ankle fracture surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III retrospective case-control study.

Increasing risk of prosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The risk of revision due to infection after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be increasing in Norway. We investigated whether this increase is a common feature in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was based on the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) dataset. 432,168 primary THAs from 1995 to 2009 were included (Denmark: 83,853, Finland 78,106, Norway 88,455, and Sweden 181,754). Adjusted survival analyses were performed using Cox regression models with revision due to infection as the endpoint. The effect of risk factors such as the year of surgery, age, sex, diagnosis, type of prosthesis, and fixation were assessed. RESULTS: 2,778 (0.6%) of the primary THAs were revised due to infection. Compared to the period 1995-1999, the relative risk (with 95% CI) of revision due to infection was 1.1 (1.0-1.2) in 2000-2004 and 1.6 (1.4-1.7) in 2005-2009. Adjusted cumulative 5-year revision rates due to infection were 0.46% (0.42-0.50) in 1995-1999, 0.54% (0.50-0.58) in 2000-2004, and 0.71% (0.66-0.76) in 2005-2009. The entire increase in risk of revision due to infection was within 1 year of primary surgery, and most notably in the first 3 months. The risk of revision due to infection increased in all 4 countries. Risk factors for revision due to infection were male sex, hybrid fixation, cement without antibiotics, and THA performed due to inflammatory disease, hip fracture, or femoral head necrosis. None of these risk factors increased in incidence during the study period. INTERPRETATION: We found increased relative risk of revision and increased cumulative 5-year revision rates due to infection after primary THA during the period 1995-2009. No change in risk factors in the NARA dataset could explain this increase. We believe that there has been an actual increase in the incidence of prosthetic joint infections after THA.

Association of Delayed Surgery for Ankle Fractures and Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Several studies probe the association between prolonged time to surgery and postoperative complications in ankle fractures, but little is known about how a longer wait time affects clinical outcomes. The present study aims to assess the association between time from injury to surgery and patient-reported outcomes after operative treatment of severe ankle fractures. METHOD: Patients treated operatively for low-energy ankle fractures that also involve the posterior malleolus from 2014 to 2016 were included. Patient charts were reviewed for patient demographics, type of trauma, fracture characteristics, treatment given, and complications. Ankle function was evaluated on a follow-up visit by clinical examination, radiographs, and patient-reported outcome measures (Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score [SEFAS], RAND-36, visual analog scale [VAS] of Pain, VAS of Satisfaction). We compared patients treated within 1 week to those treated later than a week from injury for analyses. RESULTS: Follow-up visits of 130 patients were performed at mean 26 (SD 9) months after surgery. Patient demographics and fracture characteristics were similar between groups. Mean SEFAS was 34 (SD 10) in patients treated later than a week from injury vs 38 (SD 9) in those treated earlier (P = .012). Patients operated on later than 7 days from injury reported more pain (P = .008) and lower satisfaction than those treated earlier (P = .016). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective patient series of low-energy ankle fractures with posterior malleolar fragments, we found that waiting >7 days for definitive surgery was associated with poorer clinical outcomes and more pain compared with those who had surgery earlier. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Kaplan-Meier and Cox Regression Are Preferable for the Analysis of Time to Revision of Joint Arthroplasty: Thirty-One Years of Follow-up for Cemented and Uncemented THAs Inserted From 1987 to 2000 in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that the probability function of 1 minus the Kaplan-Meier survivorship overestimates revision rates of implants and that patient death should be included in estimates as a competing risk factor. The present study aims to demonstrate that this line of thinking is incorrect and is a misunderstanding of both the Kaplan-Meier method and competing risks. METHODS: This study demonstrated the differences, misunderstandings, and interpretations of classical, competing-risk, and illness-death models with use of data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register for 15,734 cemented and 7,867 uncemented total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed from 1987 to 2000, with fixation as the exposure variable. RESULTS: The mean age was higher for patients who underwent cemented (72 years) versus uncemented THA (53 years); as such, a greater proportion of patients who underwent cemented THA had died during the time of the study (47% compared with 29%). The risk of revision at 20 years was 18% for cemented and 42% for uncemented THAs. The cumulative incidence function at 20 years was 11% for cemented and 36% for uncemented THAs. The prevalence of revision at 20 years was 6% for cemented and 31% for uncemented THAs. CONCLUSIONS: Adding death as a competing risk will always attenuate the probability of revision and does not correct for dependency between patient death and THA revision. Adjustment for age and sex almost eliminated differences in risk estimates between the different regression models. In the analysis of time until revision of joint replacements, classical survival analyses are appropriate and should be advocated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.