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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Necrotizing Bacterial Myositis as the Initial Presentation of Severe Aplastic Anaemia.

INTRODUCTION: Necrotizing soft tissue infections are rapidly progressing infections associated with severe inflammation and cytokine release. Early recognition and surgical intervention are key factors to secure survival. The current case presents a patient with multifocal necrotizing soft tissue infection as the initial presentation of severe aplastic anaemia. Case Presentation. A man in his fifties was admitted with septic shock with multiorgan failure and severe pancytopenia, after two days of malaise with high fever and right flank pain. The diagnosis streptococcal necrotizing myositis was significantly delayed due to atypical clinical findings. After initial surgical exploration, the decision was made to defer from surgical debridement due to extensive involvement of several muscle groups, grave pancytopenia, and suspected dismal prognosis. Surprisingly, the patient stabilized after antibiotics and intensive care treatment. Based on severe pancytopenia and hypocellular bone marrow, with no evidence of other bone marrow disorders, the patient was diagnosed with aplastic anaemia. Treatment for aplastic anaemia with antithymocyte globulin, cyclosporine, and eltrombopaq was started, and 2 months later, a partial haematological recovery was observed. The patient could be discharged from hospital without antibiotic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This case illustrates the crucial role of a multidisciplinary approach on admission and further during the clinical course. Clinical improvement despite severe neutropenia and stabilization during immunosuppressive therapy suggest that immunological factors modulate clinical course in necrotizing soft tissue infections.

Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement in Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infections in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Register-based Multicentre Randomised Controlled Non-inferiority Trial (ALBA trial).

INTRODUCTION: The current evidence on the efficacy of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in reducing the risk of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) after primary joint reconstruction is insufficient. In several European countries, the use of ALBC is routine practice unlike in the USA where ALBC use is not approved in low-risk patients. Therefore, we designed a double-blinded pragmatic multicentre register-based randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to investigate the effects of ALBC compared with plain bone cement in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A minimum of 9,172 patients undergoing full-cemented primary TKA will be recruited and equally randomised into the ALBC group and the plain bone cement group. This trial will be conducted in Norwegian hospitals that routinely perform cemented primary TKA. The primary outcome will be risk of revision surgery due to PJI at 1-year of follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be: risk of revision due to any reason including aseptic loosening at 1, 6, 10 and 20 years of follow-up; patient-related outcome measures like function, pain, satisfaction and health-related quality of life at 1, 6 and 10 years of follow-up; risk of changes in the microbial pattern and resistance profiles of organisms cultured in subsequent revisions at 1, 6, 10 and 20 years of follow-up; cost-effectiveness of routine ALBC versus plain bone cement use in primary TKA. We will use 1:1 randomisation with random permuted blocks and stratify by participating hospitals to randomise patients to receive ALBC or plain bone cement. Inclusion, randomisation and follow-up will be through the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by the Western Norway Regional Committees on Medical and Health Research Ethics (reference number: 2019/751/REK vest) on 21 June 2019. The findings of this trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04135170.

Traditional Approach vs Posterior Approach for Ankle Fractures Involving the Posterior Malleolus.

BACKGROUND: In the past, posterior malleolus fragments (PMFs) commonly have been indirectly reduced and fixed when fragments involve 25% or more of the tibial articular surface, while smaller fragments were left unfixed. The posterior approach has become increasingly popular and allows fixation of even smaller fragments. This study compares clinical outcome for the 2 treatment strategies. METHODS: Patients with ankle fractures involving a PMF treated from 2014 to 2016 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were allocated to group A (treated with a posterior approach) or group B (treated with the traditional approach) according to the treatment given. A one-to-one matching of patients from each group based on the size of the PMF was performed. Patient charts were reviewed, and outcome evaluation was performed clinically, radiographically, and by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score, RAND-36, visual analog scale [VAS] of pain, and VAS of satisfaction). Forty-three patients from each group were matched. Median follow-up was 26 (interquartile range [IQR], 19-35) months postoperatively. RESULTS: The median PMF size was 17% (IQR, 12-24) in both groups, and they reported similar results in terms of PROMs. Fixation of the PMF was performed in 42 of 43 (98%) patients in group A and 7 of 43 (16%) patients in group B (P < .001). The former group more frequently got temporary external fixation (56% vs 12%, P < .01) and less frequently had syndesmotic fixation (14% vs 49%, P < .01), and they had less mechanical irritation and hardware removal but more noninfectious skin problems (28% vs 5%, P < .01). Median time from injury to definitive surgery (8 vs 0 days, P < .001) and median length of stay (12 vs 3 days, P < .001) were longer in group A. CONCLUSION: Comparison of treatment strategies for ankle fractures involving the posterior malleolus showed similar results between patients treated with a traditional approach and a posterior approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

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.

Operative approach influences functional outcome after DAIR for infected total hip arthroplasty.

AIMS: To compare the functional outcome, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and satisfaction of patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and a single debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure for deep infection, using either the transgluteal or the posterior surgical approach for both procedures. METHODS: The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT03161990) on 15 May 2017. Patients treated with a single DAIR procedure for deep infection through the same operative approach as their primary THA (either the transgluteal or the posterior approach) were identified in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and given a questionnaire. Median follow-up after DAIR by questionnaire was 5.5 years in the transgluteal group (n = 87) and 2.5 years in the posterior approach group (n = 102). RESULTS: Patients in the posterior approach group were less likely to limp after the DAIR procedure (17% vs 36% limped all the time; p = 0.005), had a higher mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function score (80 vs 71; p = 0.013), and were more likely to achieve a patient acceptable symptom state for the WOMAC function score (76% vs 55%; p = 0.002). In a multivariable analysis, the point estimate for the increase in WOMAC function score using the posterior approach was 10.2 (95% CI 3.1 to 17.2; p = 0.005), which is above the minimal clinically important improvement. The patients in the posterior approach group also reported better mean HRQoL scores and were more likely to be satisfied with their hip arthroplasty (77% vs 55%; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients treated with a single, successful DAIR procedure for deep infection of a primary THA, the use of the posterior approach in both primary surgery and DAIR was associated with less limping, better functional outcome, better HRQoL, and higher patient satisfaction compared with cases where both were performed using the transgluteal approach. The observed differences in functional outcome and patient satisfaction were clinically relevant. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1662-1669.

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.

Compliance with national guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in hip fracture patients: a quality assessment study of 13 329 patients in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed compliance with new guidelines for prophylactic antibiotics in hip fracture surgery in Norway introduced in 2013. DESIGN: The data from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register was used to assess the proportion of antibiotics given according to the national guidelines. SETTING: All hospitals in Norway performing hip fracture surgery in the period from 2011 to 2016. PARTICIPANTS: We studied 13 329 hemiarthroplasties (HAs) for acute hip fracture. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Type and timing between first and last dose of prophylactic antibiotics compared with the national guidelines. RESULTS: Before the guidelines were introduced, the recommended drugs cephalotin or clindamycin was used in only 86.2% of all HAs. In 2016, one of the two recommended drugs was administered in 99.2% of HAs. However, hospitals' adaption of the recommended administration of the two drugs improved slowly, and by the end of the study period, only three out of five HAs were performed with the correct drug administered in the correct manner. We found major differences in compliance between hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: The change towards correct administration of antibiotic prophylaxis was varied both when investigating university and non-university hospitals. We suggest that both hospital leaders and the national Directorate of Health need to investigate routines for better dissemination of information and education to involved parties. Strong leadership concerning evidence-based guidelines on antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery may take away some autonomy from executing healthcare professionals, but will result in better patient care and antibiotic stewardship.

Operating room ventilation-Validation of reported data on 108 067 primary total hip arthroplasties in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: The true effect of laminar airflow (LAF) systems on postoperative infection is disputed, partly due to uncertainty regarding the validity of ventilation data in register studies. The aim of this study was to validate the information on operating room (OR) ventilation reported by the orthopaedic surgeons to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHOD: Forty of the 62 public orthopaedic units performing primary THA in Norway during the period 1987-2015 were included. The hospitals' current and previous ventilation systems were evaluated in cooperation with the hospitals head engineer. We identified the type of ventilation system reported to the NAR and compared the information with the factual ventilation in the specific ORs at the time of primary THA. RESULTS: A total of 108 067 primary THAs were eligible for assessment. None of the hospitals performed THA in true "greenhouse" (GH) ventilation. Fifty-seven percent of the primary THAs were performed in ORs with LAF and 43% in ORs with conventional, turbulent ventilation (CV). Comparing the reported data with the validated data, LAF was reported with a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 89%, and positive predictive value (PPV) of 92%, with an accuracy of 88%. CV was reported with a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 87%, and PPV of 84%, with an accuracy of 88%. The total, mean misreporting rate was 12%. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons were not fully aware of what kind of ventilation system they operated in. This study indicates that conclusions based on ventilation data reported on THA in the NAR should not be interpreted without considering the inaccuracy of the data.

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.

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.