Prosthetic Joint Infection and Wound Leakage After the Introduction of Intraoperative Wound Irrigation With a Chlorhexidine-Cetrimide Solution: A Large-Scale Before-After Study.

Background: Intraoperative chlorhexidine irrigation could be a valuable additive to systemic antibiotics to prevent infections after total joint arthroplasties. However, it may cause cytotoxicity and impair wound healing. This study evaluates the incidence of infection and wound leakage before and after the introduction of intraoperative chlorhexidine lavage. Methods: All 4453 patients receiving a primary hip or knee prosthesis between 2007 and 2013 in our hospital were retrospectively included. They all underwent intraoperative lavage before wound closure. Initially, wound irrigation with 0.9% NaCl was standard care (n = 2271). In 2008, additional irrigation with a chlorhexidine-cetrimide (CC) solution was gradually introduced (n = 2182). Data on the incidence of prosthetic joint infections and wound leakage, as well as relevant baseline and surgical characteristics, were derived from medical charts. Chi-square analysis was used to compare the incidence of infection and wound leakage between patients with and without CC irrigation. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess robustness of these effects by adjusting for potential confounders. Results: The prosthetic infection rate was 2.2% in the group without CC irrigation vs 1.3% in the group with CC irrigation (P = .021). Wound leakage occurred in 15.6% of the group without CC irrigation and in 18.8% of the group with CC irrigation (P = .004). However, multivariable analyses showed that both findings were likely due to confounding variables, rather than by the change in intraoperative CC irrigation. Conclusions: Intraoperative wound irrigation using a CC solution does not seem to affect the risk of prosthetic joint infection or wound leakage. Observational data easily yield misleading results, so prospective randomized studies are needed to verify causal inference. Level of Evidence: Level III-uncontrolled before and after the study.

Guideline for management of septic arthritis in native joints (SANJO).

This clinical guideline is intended for use by orthopedic surgeons and physicians who care for patients with possible or documented septic arthritis of a native joint (SANJO). It includes evidence and opinion-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of patients with SANJO.

A desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) for periprosthetic joint infection - a Delphi analysis.

Background: Treatment outcomes in studies on prosthetic joint infection are generally assessed using a dichotomous outcome relating to treatment success or failure. These outcome measures neither include patient-centred outcome measures including joint function and quality of life, nor do they account for adverse effects of treatment. A desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) measure can include these factors and has previously been proposed and validated for other serious infections. We aimed to develop a novel DOOR for prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Methods: The Delphi method was used to develop a DOOR for PJI research. An international working group of 18 clinicians (orthopaedic surgeons and infectious disease specialists) completed the Delphi process. The final DOOR comprised the dimensions established to be most important by consensus with > 75  % of participant agreement. Results: The consensus DOOR comprised four main dimensions. The primary dimension was patient-reported joint function. The secondary dimensions were infection cure and mortality. The final dimension of quality of life was selected as a tie-breaker. Discussion: A desirability of outcome ranking for periprosthetic joint infection has been proposed. It focuses on patient-centric outcome measures of joint function, cure and quality of life. This DOOR provides a multidimensional assessment to comprehensively rank outcomes when comparing treatments for prosthetic joint infection.

Comparison of early migration patterns between a ceramic and polyethylene liner in uncemented Trabecular Titanium cups: a 2-year randomized controlled trial of 52 hips using radiostereometric analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ceramic liners may reduce early stability of uncemented acetabular components due to higher stiffness. However, the bone ingrowth capacities of porous trabecular titanium might compensate for this effect. This prospective randomized trial quantifies migration patterns of the Delta-TT cup, and compares polyethylene and ceramic liners. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing primary uncemented total hip arthroplasty with the Delta-TT cup and femoral stem with ceramic head were randomized to a polyethylene (n = 25) or ceramic (n = 28) liner. Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) radiographs, patient-reported hip function (HOOS-PS, OHS), and quality of life (EQ5D) were collected at baseline and 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Model-based RSA was used to calculate 3D cup translation and rotation, and mixed models were used to compare effects over time between groups. RESULTS: At 2 years follow-up, Delta-TT cups showed similar mean proximal translation of 0.56 mm (95% CI 0.38-0.75) in the ceramic (CE) group and 0.54 mm (0.30-0.77) in the polyethylene (PE) group, with a between group effect of 0.02 mm (-0.20-0.23). Most cup migration occurred in the first 1.5 to 3 months, stabilizing within 6 months. Any between-group effects were ≤ 0.30 mm for translation and ≤ 0.45° for rotation. Improvements in patient-reported hip function and quality of life were similar in both groups. INTERPRETATION: Regardless of liner type, Delta-TT cups showed some initial migration and stabilized within 6 months, which seems promising for long-term fixation in both cup-liner constructs.

Improved patient reported outcomes with functional articulating spacers in two-stage revision of the infected hip.

BACKGROUND: Two-stage revision arthroplasty with an antibiotic-loaded spacer is the treatment of choice in chronically infected total hip arthroplasties. Interval spacers can be functional articulating or prefabricated. Functional results of these spacers have scarcely been reported. AIM: To compare retrospectively the patient reported outcome and infection eradication rate after two-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip with the use of a functional articulating or prefabricated spacer. METHODS: All patients with two-stage revision of a hip prosthesis at our hospital between 2003 and 2016 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into two groups; patients treated with a functional articulating spacer or with a prefabricated spacer. Patients completed the Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and the EQ-5D-3L (EQ-5D) and the EQ-5D quality of life thermometer (EQ-VAS) scores. Primary outcomes were patient reported outcome and infection eradication after two-stage revision. The results of both groups were compared to the patient acceptable symptom state for primary arthroplasty of the hip. Secondary outcomes were complications during spacer treatment and at final follow-up. Descriptive statistics, mean and range are used to represent the demographics of the patients. For numerical variables, students' t-tests were used to assess the level of significance for differences between the groups, with 95% confidence intervals; for binary outcome, we used Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: We consecutively treated 55 patients with a prefabricated spacer and 15 patients with a functional articulating spacer of the hip. The infection eradication rates for functional articulating and prefabricated spacers were 93% and 78%, respectively (P > 0.05). With respect to the functional outcome, the Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and its subscores (all P < 0.01), the EQ-5D (P < 0.01) and the EQ-VAS scores (P < 0.05) were all significantly better for patients successfully treated with a functional articulating spacer. More patients in the functional articulating spacer group reached the patient acceptable symptom state for the HOOS pain, HOOS quality of life and EQ-VAS. The number of patients with a spacer dislocation was not significantly different for the functional articulating or prefabricated spacer group (P > 0.05). However, the number of dislocations per patient experiencing a dislocation was significantly higher for patients with a prefabricated spacer (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Functional articulating spacers lead to improved patient reported functional outcome and less perioperative complications after two-stage revision arthroplasty of an infected total hip prosthesis, while maintaining a similar infection eradication rate compared to prefabricated spacers.

Functional Outcomes of Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy Versus Physical Therapy for Degenerative Meniscal Tears Using a Patient-Specific Score: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether the treatment effects of partial meniscectomy and physical therapy differ when focusing on activities most valued by patients with degenerative meniscal tears. PURPOSE: To compare partial meniscectomy with physical therapy in patients with a degenerative meniscal tear, focusing on patients' most important functional limitations as the outcome. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: This study is part of the Cost-effectiveness of Early Surgery versus Conservative Treatment with Optional Delayed Meniscectomy for Patients over 45 years with non-obstructive meniscal tears (ESCAPE) trial, a multicenter noninferiority randomized controlled trial conducted in 9 orthopaedic hospital departments in the Netherlands. The ESCAPE trial included 321 patients aged between 45 and 70 years with a symptomatic, magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed meniscal tear. Exclusion criteria were severe osteoarthritis, body mass index >35 kg/m2, locking of the knee, and prior knee surgery or knee instability due to an anterior or posterior cruciate ligament rupture. This study compared partial meniscectomy with physical therapy consisting of a supervised incremental exercise protocol of 16 sessions over 8 weeks. The main outcome measure was the Dutch-language equivalent of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), a secondary outcome measure of the ESCAPE trial. We used crude and adjusted linear mixed-model analyses to reveal the between-group differences over 24 months. We calculated the minimal important change for the PSFS using an anchor-based method. RESULTS: After 24 months, 286 patients completed the follow-up. The partial meniscectomy group (n = 139) improved on the PSFS by a mean of 4.8 ± 2.6 points (from 6.8 ± 1.9 to 2.0 ± 2.2), and the physical therapy group (n = 147) improved by a mean of 4.0 ± 3.1 points (from 6.7 ± 2.0 to 2.7 ± 2.5). The crude overall between-group difference showed a -0.6-point difference (95% CI, -1.0 to -0.2; P = .004) in favor of the partial meniscectomy group. This improvement was statistically significant but not clinically meaningful, as the calculated minimal important change was 2.5 points on an 11-point scale. CONCLUSION: Both interventions were associated with a clinically meaningful improvement regarding patients' most important functional limitations. Although partial meniscectomy was associated with a statistically larger improvement at some follow-up time points, the difference compared with physical therapy was small and clinically not meaningful at any follow-up time point. REGISTRATION: NCT01850719 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier) and NTR3908 (the Netherlands Trial Register).

Study protocol: Effectiveness of dual-mobility cups compared with uni-polar cups for preventing dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty in elderly patients - design of a randomized controlled trial nested in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry.

Background and purpose - Dislocation is the leading reason for early revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The dual-mobility (DM) cup was developed to provide more stability and mechanically reduce the risk of dislocation. Despite the increased use of DM cups, high-quality evidence of their (cost-)effectiveness is lacking. The primary objective of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to investigate whether there is a difference in the number of hip dislocations following primary THA, using the posterolateral approach, with a DM cup compared with a unipolar (UP) cup in elderly patients 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include the number of revision surgeries, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and cost-effectiveness.Methods and analysis - This is a prospective multicenter nationwide, single-blinded RCT nested in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry. Patients ≥ 70 years old, undergoing elective primary THA using the posterolateral approach, will be eligible. After written informed consent, 1,100 participants will be randomly allocated to the intervention or control group. The intervention group receives a THA with a DM cup and the control group a THA with a UP cup. PROMs are collected preoperatively, and 3 months, 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Primary outcome is the difference in number of dislocations between the UP and DM cup within 1 year, reported in the registry (revisions), or by the patients (closed or open reduction). Data will be analyzed using multilevel models as appropriate for each outcome (linear/logistic/survival). An economic evaluation will be performed from the healthcare and societal perspective, for dislocation and quality adjusted life years (QALYs).Trial registration - This RCT is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov with identification number NCT04031820.

Similar risk of complete revision for infection with single-dose versus multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in primary arthroplasty of the hip and knee: results of an observational cohort study in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register in 242,179 patients.

Background and purpose - The optimal type and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis for primary arthroplasty of the hip and knee are subject to debate. We compared the risk of complete revision (obtained by a 1- or 2-stage procedure) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary total hip or knee arthroplasty between patients receiving a single dose of prophylactic antibiotics and patients receiving multiple doses of antibiotics for prevention of PJI. Patients and methods - A cohort of 130,712 primary total hip and 111,467 knee arthroplasties performed between 2011 and 2015 in the Netherlands was analyzed. We linked data from the Dutch arthroplasty register to a survey collected across all Dutch institutions on hospital-level antibiotic prophylaxis policy. We used restricted cubic spline Poisson models adjusted for hospital clustering to compare the risk of revision for infection according to type and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis received. Results - For total hip arthroplasties, the rates of revision for infection were 31/10,000 person-years (95% CI 28-35), 39 (25-59), and 23 (15-34) in the groups that received multiple doses of cefazolin, multiple doses of cefuroxime, and a single dose of cefazolin, respectively. The rates for knee arthroplasties were 27/10,000 person-years (95% CI 24-31), 40 (24-62), and 24 (16-36). Similar risk of complete revision for infection among antibiotic prophylaxis regimens was found when adjusting for confounders. Interpretation - In a large observational cohort we found no apparent association between the type or duration of antibiotic prophylaxis and the risk of complete revision for infection. This does question whether there is any advantage to the use of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis beyond a single dose.

Two-stage revision arthroplasty for coagulase-negative staphylococcal periprosthetic joint infection of the hip and knee.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are frequently caused by coagulase-negative Staphylococci (CoNS), which is known to be a hard-to-treat microorganism. Antibiotic resistance among causative pathogens of PJI is increasing. Two-stage revision is the favoured treatment for chronic CoNS infection of a hip or knee prosthesis. We hypothesised that the infection eradication rate of our treatment protocol for two-stage revision surgery for CoNS PJI of the hip and knee would be comparable to eradication rates described in the literature. AIM: To evaluate the infection eradication rate of two-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI caused by CoNS. METHODS: All patients treated with two-stage revision of a hip or knee prosthesis were retrospectively included. Patients with CoNS infection were included in the study, including polymicrobial cases. Primary outcome was infection eradication at final follow-up. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were included in the study. Twenty-nine patients were treated for PJI of the hip and fifteen for PJI of the knee. At final follow-up after a mean of 37 mo, recurrent or persistent infection was present in eleven patients. CONCLUSION: PJI with CoNS can be a difficult to treat infection due to increasing antibiotic resistance. Infection eradication rate of 70%-80% may be achieved.

Long-term Conventionally Dosed Vancomycin Therapy In Patients With Orthopaedic Implant-related Infections Seems As Effective And Safe As Long-term Penicillin Or Clindamycin Therapy. A Retrospective Cohort Study Of 103 Patients.

Objectives: Antimicrobial therapy is one of the cornerstones of orthopaedic implant-related infections (OIRI) treatment. Infections with Gram-positive bacteria are often treated with vancomycin, penicillin or clindamycin. A recent IDSA guideline suggests increasing the dose of vancomycin to increase the trough vancomycin target serum concentrations. This is deemed necessary because of an observed decrease in vancomycin susceptibility among Gram-positive bacteria. However, elevated vancomycin concentrations are correlated with the risk of nephrotoxicity, especially with prolonged therapy. Compared to most countries, rates of resistance against antibiotics among bacteria in the Netherlands are lower for currently available antibiotics, therefore lower target concentrations of vancomycin are probably efficacious for the treatment of infections. In this study we evaluated the efficacy and safety of long-term conventionally dosed vancomycin therapy, as an initial therapy for OIRI, and compared this with long-term penicillin and clindamycin therapy, as initial therapy, in patients with Gram-positive orthopaedic implant-related infections. Methods: A retrospective, observational study was conducted in 103 adult patients treated for OIRI, with vancomycin, penicillin or clindamycin for at least 10 days. The target trough serum concentration of vancomycin was 10-15 mg/l. Results: 74% of our patients were treated successfully with vancomycin, as initial therapy, (no reinfection within 1 year) versus 55% of our patients treated with either an antibiotic of the penicillin class (mostly flucloxacillin) or clindamycin (p=0.08), as initial therapy. For patients treated with vancomycin we observed a serum creatinine increase of 6 µmol/l, for patients treated with either an antibiotic of the penicillin class or clindamycin the serum creatinine increase was 4 µmol/l (p=0.395). Conclusions: In our population of patients with OIRI long-term treatment with conventionally dosed vancomycin, as initial therapy, was not significantly less effective and safe as long-term treatment with an antibiotic of the penicillin class or clindamycin, as initial therapy.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis and DAIR Treatment in Primary Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty, A National Survey in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: To prevent postoperative infection the use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is common ground. Type of antibiotic used and duration of prophylaxis are subject to debate. In case of suspected early periprosthetic infection a debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure is treatment of first choice. This study evaluated the antibiotic prophylaxis and DAIR treatment protocols nationwide as well as reporting of these DAIR procedures to the national joint registry. METHODS: All institutions that performed total hip or knee arthroplasty were contacted to complete a 16-question online survey. Questions included availability of a protocol, type and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis used and tendency to register infectious complications in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. RESULTS: All ninety-nine consulted institutions responded to this survey. All but one institutions have a standardized hospital based protocol for antibiotic prophylaxis in primary total hip or knee arthroplasty. Cefazolin was antibiotic prophylaxis of choice in ninety-four institutions for both primary hip and knee arthroplasty. In ten institutions one preoperative gift of antibiotic prophylaxis was administered. A protocol describing treatment when suspecting early periprosthetic joint infection was present in seventy-one institutions. When performing a DAIR procedure modular parts were exchanged in seventy institutions in case of a hip prosthesis and in eighty-one institutions in case of a knee prosthesis. Sixty-three institutions register DAIR procedures in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. INTERPRETATION: In contradiction to the results of a recent study in Great Britain, we have found only little variety in availability of protocols and in the type of antibiotic used as prophylaxis in primary total hip and knee arthroplasty in The Netherlands. Not every institution has a protocol for treatment in suspicion of early infection. Although mobile parts are exchanged in the majority of cases, there appears to be an underreporting of DAIR procedures in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.

Antibiotic prophylaxis is not indicated prior to dental procedures for prevention of periprosthetic joint infections.

Background and purpose - To minimize the risk of hematogenous periprosthetic joint infection (HPJI), international and Dutch guidelines recommended antibiotic prophylaxis prior to dental procedures. Unclear definitions and contradictory recommendations in these guidelines have led to unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions. To formulate new guidelines, a joint committee of the Dutch Orthopaedic and Dental Societies conducted a systematic literature review to answer the following question: can antibiotic prophylaxis be recommended for patients (with joint prostheses) undergoing dental procedures in order to prevent dental HPJI? Methods - The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), reviews, and observational studies up to July 2015. Studies were included if they involved patients with joint implants undergoing dental procedures, and either considered HPJI as an outcome measure or described a correlation between HPJI and prophylactic antibiotics. A guideline was formulated using the GRADE method and AGREE II guidelines. Results - 9 studies were included in this systematic review. All were rated "very low quality of evidence". Additional literature was therefore consulted to address clinical questions that provide further insight into pathophysiology and risk factors. The 9 studies did not provide evidence that use of antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the incidence of dental HPJI, and the additional literature supported the conclusion that antibiotic prophylaxis should be discouraged in dental procedures. Interpretation - Prophylactic antibiotics in order to prevent dental HPJI should not be prescribed to patients with a normal or an impaired immune system function. Patients are recommended to maintain good oral hygiene and visit the dentist regularly.

Similar rate of infection eradication for functional articulating, prefabricated and custom-made spacers in 2-stage revision of the infected total hip: a literature review.

BACKGROUND: 2-stage revision with the use of an antibiotic-loaded interval spacer is therapy of choice in late periprosthetic joint infection for most surgeons. For the spacer, either a prefabricated, functional articulating or custom-made spacer can be used. Little is known about which type of spacer provides optimal outcome after 2-stage revision. The aim of this study was to determine which type of spacer provides the best results, when used in 2-stage revision of an infected THA. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature to analyse which type of interval spacer provides highest infection eradication rate and best functional outcome after a minimum 2 year follow-up. Exclusion criteria were follow-up of less than 2 years, single-stage revision, or 2-stage revision without use of a spacer. RESULTS: 25 studies were included. Infection eradication rate was similar with rates of 96%, 93% and 95% for the prefabricated-, functional articulating- and custom-made spacers respectively. Functional outcome was scarcely described. Postoperative HHS was 81, 90 and 83 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Functional articulating spacers achieve a comparable rate of infection eradication in the treatment of periprosthetic hip joint infections as compared to preformed or custom-made antibiotic-loaded spacers. There is insufficient evidence concerning rehabilitation and functional outcome after 2-stage revision hip arthroplasty to advocate or discourage the use of either kind of interval spacer.

Total Hip Arthroplasty After Acetabular Fracture Is Associated With Lower Survivorship and More Complications.

BACKGROUND: Despite modern fracture management techniques allowing for near anatomic reduction of acetabular fractures, there continues to be a risk of posttraumatic arthritis and need for total hip arthroplasty (THA). Few well-controlled studies have compared THA after acetabular fractures with THAs performed for other indications in terms of survivorship or complications, and none, to our knowledge, present 10-year survivorship data in this setting. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) How does the 10-year survival of THA compare between those patients who underwent THA after an acetabular fracture and those who underwent THA for primary arthritis or avascular necrosis (AVN)? (2) Is there an increased risk of serious complications like infection, dislocation, and aseptic loosening as well as heterotopic ossification associated with a THA performed after a previous acetabular fracture? METHODS: This retrospective case-control study compared findings of patients who underwent THA after acetabular fracture versus a matched cohort of patients who had received a primary THA for primary osteoarthritis or AVN. Between 1987 and 2011, we performed 95 THAs after acetabular fracture; of those, 74 (78%) met inclusion criteria and had documented followup beyond 2 years in our institutional registry. We selected 74 matched patients based on an algorithm that matched patients based on preoperative diagnosis, date of operation, age, gender, and type of prosthesis. During this time, we performed approximately 8000 THAs that were potentially available for matching based on complete followup beyond 2 years. We compared cases and control subjects using the Kaplan-Meier survivorship estimator as well as a comparison of the proportions in each group that developed major complications (including infection, dislocation, loosening, and heterotopic ossification) based a retrospective chart review. RESULTS: The 10-year survivorship after THA was lower in patients with a previous acetabular fracture than in the matched cohort (70%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 64%-78%, versus 90%, 95% CI, 86-95%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in the 10-year survival rate for those patients whose acetabular fracture was initially treated conservatively and those treated by open reduction and internal fixation. Patients with previous acetabular fracture had a higher likelihood of developing infection (7% [five of 74] versus 0% [zero of 74]; odds ratio [OR], 11.79; p = 0.028), dislocation (11% [eight of 74] versus 3% [two of 74]; OR, 4.36; p = 0.048), or heterotopic ossification (43% [32 of 74] versus 16% [12 of 74]; OR, 3.93; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this case-control study, patients with a prior acetabular fracture had markedly inferior 10-year survivorship and more frequent serious complications when compared with patients undergoing THA for primary osteoarthritis or AVN. Given these findings, management of these complex cases should be in highly specialized units where the expertise of arthroplasty and trauma reconstruction is available. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Missed low-grade infection in suspected aseptic loosening has no consequences for the survival of total hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Aseptic loosening and infection are 2 of the most common causes of revision of hip implants. Antibiotic prophylaxis reduces not only the rate of revision due to infection but also the rate of revision due to aseptic loosening. This suggests under-diagnosis of infections in patients with presumed aseptic loosening and indicates that current diagnostic tools are suboptimal. In a previous multicenter study on 176 patients undergoing revision of a total hip arthroplasty due to presumed aseptic loosening, optimized diagnostics revealed that 4-13% of the patients had a low-grade infection. These infections were not treated as such, and in the current follow-up study the effect on mid- to long-term implant survival was investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were sent a 2-part questionnaire. Part A requested information about possible re-revisions of their total hip arthroplasty. Part B consisted of 3 patient-related outcome measure questionnaires (EQ5D, Oxford hip score, and visual analog scale for pain). Additional information was retrieved from the medical records. The group of patients found to have a low-grade infection was compared to those with aseptic loosening. RESULTS: 173 of 176 patients from the original study were included. In the follow-up time between the revision surgery and the current study (mean 7.5 years), 31 patients had died. No statistically significant difference in the number of re-revisions was found between the infection group (2 out of 21) and the aseptic loosening group (13 out of 152); nor was there any significant difference in the time to re-revision. Quality of life, function, and pain were similar between the groups, but only 99 (57%) of the patients returned part B. INTERPRETATION: Under-diagnosis of low-grade infection in conjunction with presumed aseptic revision of total hip arthroplasty may not affect implant survival.