Abstract
Aim
Identification of the causal pathogen is crucial in the management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip. Unfortunately, it was often difficult and negative culture could be a common findings. This situation made the treatment of PJI of the hip became more challenging. The negative culture finding resulted in a doubtful diagnosis of infection, and poses difficulty in choosing the appropriate antibiotics. Here we compared the treatment outcome of two-stage revision arthroplasty for culture-negative versus culture-positive PJI of the hip.
Method
We retrospectively reviewed patients who received two-stage revision for PJI of the hip between January 2010 to June 2015. All patients was planned to received articulated antibiotic cement-spacer as the first stage and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) as the second stage of the procedure. Out of total 94 patients, 10 patients was loss to follow-up and excluded from the study. We devided the rest of 84 patients into two groups: culture-negative group (n: 27) and culture-positive group (n: 57). We compared all relevant medical records and the treatment outcome between the two groups.
Results
The mean of follow-up was 29.5 months (range, 12–78) in culture-negative group and 30.9 months (range, 12–71) in culture-positive group (p = 0.74). The overall negative culture finding rate was 30.8%. There was no significant difference on baseline data between the two groups including: age, gender, body mass index, preoperative C-reactive protein (CRP), preoperative erythrocyte sedimentation rate and preoperative white blood count, type of hip arthroplasty, previous history of irrigation and debridement (I & D), and preoperative Harris hip score (HHS). However, culture-negative group has significantly higher number on history of preoperative antibiotic use (p = 0.003). The reimplantation rate was 96.3% and 91.2% in culture-negative and culture-positive group, respectively (p= 0.39). The infection recurrency rate after reimplantation was 7.7% and 15.4% in culture-negative and culture-positive group, respectively (p= 0.33). The overall infection control rate was 92.6% (25/27) and 82.4% (47/57) in culture-negative and culture-positive group, respectively (p = 0.21). We also observed no significant difference on the time interval between stage, time to normal CRP, time to recurrency and complications rate between the two groups. A higher postoperative HHS was obtained in culture-negative group (p = 0.04).
Conclusions
Negative culture finding was not resulted in an inferior treatment outcome compared to culture-positive group in periprosthetic joint infection of the hip which treated with two-stage revision arthroplasty.
