Previous publications have suggested that the incidence of revisions due to infection after THA is increasing. We performed updated time-trend analyses of risk and timing of revision due to infection after primary THAs in the Nordic countries during the period 2004–2018. 569,463 primary THAs reported to the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association from 2004 through 2018 were studied. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) with 95% confidence interval by Cox regression with the first revision due to infection after primary THA as endpoint. The risk of revision was investigated. In addition, we explored changes in the time span from primary THA to revision due to infection.Aim
Methods
In recent years, many studies on We investigated the reported Aim
Methods
The aim of this study was to assess the influence of the true operating room (OR) ventilation on the risk of revision due to infection after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR). 40 orthopedic units were included during the period 2005 – 2015. The Unidirectional airflow (UDAF) systems were subdivided into small-area, low-volume, vertical UDAF (lvUDAF) (volume flow rate (VFR) (m3/hour) <=10,000 and diffuser array size (DAS) (m2) <=10); large-area, high-volume, vertical UDAF (hvUDAF) (VFR >=10,000 and DAS >=10) and Horizontal UDAF (H-UDAF). The systems were compared to conventional, turbulent ventilation (CV) systems. The association between revision due to infection and OR ventilation was assessed using Cox regression models, with adjustments for sex, age, indication for surgery, ASA-classification, method of fixation, modularity of the components, duration of surgery, in addition to year of primary THA. All included THAs received systemic, antibiotic prophylaxis.Aim
Method
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after knee arthroplasty surgery remains a serious complication. Yet, there is no international consensus on the surgical treatment of PJI. The purpose was to assess the prosthesis survival rates, risk of re-revision, and mortality rate following the different surgical strategies (1-stage or 2-stage implant revision, and irrigation and debridement (IAD) with implant retention) used to treat PJI. The study was based on 653 total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) revised due to PJI in the period 1994 to 2016. Kaplan-Meier (KM) and multiple Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the survival rate of these revisions and the risk of re-revisions. We also studied the mortality rates at 90 days and 1 year after revision for PJI.Background
Methods
To see what surgical strategy was used in treating infected total hip arthroplasties (THA), relative to bacterial findings, level of inflammation, length of antibiotic treatment (AB) and re-revisions. Further, to assess the results of treatment after three months and one year. We used our national arthroplasty register (NAR) to identify THA revised for deep infection from 2004–2015 reported from our hospital. We identified the strategy of revision, i.e. one-stage exchange (one-stage), two-stage exchange (two-stage), debridement and implant retention (DAIR), or Girdlestone, and reported re-revisions for infection. We defined cure as no AB, no need for further surgery and joint with prosthesis (not Girdlestone). From the hospitals’ medical records we retrieved bacterial findings from the revisions, level of C-reactive protein (CRP), type of antibiotics given, duration of antibiotic therapy and clinical data regarding the patients. The information reported to the NAR was also validated.Aim
Method
