» Articles » PMID: 28695187

Infection Burden in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasties: an International Registry-based Perspective

Overview
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2017 Jul 12
PMID 28695187
Citations 90
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Infection remains a leading cause of failure of hip and knee replacements. Infection burden is the ratio of implants revised for infection to the total number of arthroplasties in a specific period, measuring the steady state of infection in a registry. We hypothesized infection burden would be similar among arthroplasty registries.

Methods: We evaluated publicly reported data from 6 arthroplasty registries (Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry [AOANJRR], New Zealand Joint Registry, Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register, National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man, and the American Joint Replacement Registry) for revisions performed with an infection diagnosis over the last 6 years.

Results: The 2015 hip infection burden varied between registries from 0.76% (AOANJRR) to 1.24% (Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register), and the unweighted overall average for hip infection burden was 0.97%. In 2012, 2013, and 2014, average hip infection burden held steady at 0.87%, 0.93%, and 0.94%, respectively, higher than the preceding 2 years. The 2015 knee infection burden varied from 0.88% (AOANJRR) to 1.28% (Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register), and the unweighted average was 1.03%. In 2012, 2013, and 2014, knee infection burden was 1.04%, 1.11%, and 1.02%, respectively. These numbers were also higher than the preceding 2 years.

Conclusions: Infection burden may be one measure of the overall success in registry populations as well as monitoring the steady state of infection worldwide. Despite global efforts to reduce postoperative infection, infection burden has actually increased in the selected registries over time.

Citing Articles

Real Component Spacers for Two-Stage Exchange Demonstrate Low Bacterial Colonization.

Finger L, Wilson A, Couch B, Hoffman A, Njoku-Austin C, Klatt B Arthroplast Today. 2025; 32:101633.

PMID: 40066236 PMC: 11891601. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2025.101633.


The health-economic burden of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections in Europe : a comprehensive analysis following primary arthroplasty.

Szymski D, Rupp M, Fontalis A, Marais L, Walter N, Alt V Bone Jt Open. 2025; 6(3):298-311.

PMID: 40054494 PMC: 11888791. DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.63.BJO-2024-0225.R1.


Correlation between a real-time bioparticle detection device and a traditional microbiological active air sampler monitoring air quality in an operating room during elective arthroplasty surgery: a prospective feasibility study.

Larsson L, Nordenadler J, Bjorling G, Fellander-Tsai L, Lazarinis S, Ljungqvist B Acta Orthop. 2025; 96:176-181.

PMID: 39993175 PMC: 11849163. DOI: 10.2340/17453674.2025.43002.


Photodynamic Therapy with Protoporphyrin IX Precursors Using Artificial Daylight Improves Skin Antisepsis for Orthopedic Surgeries.

Schweizer T, Wurmli J, Prinz J, Wolfle M, Marti R, Koliwer-Brandl H Microorganisms. 2025; 13(1).

PMID: 39858972 PMC: 11767567. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms13010204.


Association between IV and topical tranexamic acid use and periprosthetic joint infections in hip and knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study.

Hsu Y, Hsu A, Wu C, Tan T, Wang J, Kuo F BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024; 25(1):1033.

PMID: 39702243 PMC: 11660769. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-08080-y.


References
1.
Ranawat C, Flynn Jr W, Saddler S, Hansraj K, Maynard M . Long-term results of the total condylar knee arthroplasty. A 15-year survivorship study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993; (286):94-102. View

2.
Kurtz S, Ong K, Schmier J, Mowat F, Saleh K, Dybvik E . Future clinical and economic impact of revision total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89 Suppl 3:144-51. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.G.00587. View

3.
Ulrich S, Seyler T, Bennett D, Delanois R, Saleh K, Thongtrangan I . Total hip arthroplasties: what are the reasons for revision?. Int Orthop. 2007; 32(5):597-604. PMC: 2551710. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-007-0364-3. View

4.
Dalury D, Pomeroy D, Gorab R, Adams M . Why are total knee arthroplasties being revised?. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28(8 Suppl):120-1. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.051. View

5.
Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Bozic K, Berry D, Parvizi J . Prosthetic joint infection risk after TKA in the Medicare population. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 468(1):52-6. PMC: 2795807. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-009-1013-5. View