The aim of this study is to examine the differences in long-term mortality rates between infected and aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in a single specialist centre over an 18-year period. Retrospective consecutive study of all patients who underwent rTHA at our tertiary centre between 2003 and 2020 was carried out. Revisions were classified as infected or aseptic. We identified patients’ age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade (ASA) and body mass index (BMI). The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 5 years, 10 years and over the whole study period at 18 years. Death was identified through both local hospital electronic databases and linked data for the National Joint Registry. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate time to death. Where two-stage revision techniques were used of the management of infected cases, these were grouped as a single revision episode for the purpose of analysis. In total, 1138 consecutive hip revisions were performed on 1063 patients (56 bilateral revisions – aseptic, 10 Excision arthroplasties – infection, 9 – Debridement, Antibiotics, Implant retention (DAIR) with 893 aseptic revisions in 837 patients (78.7%) and 245 infected revisions in 226 patients (21.3%). Average age of the entire study cohort was 71.0 (24–101) with 527 female (49.6%). Average age of the infection and aseptic cohorts was 68.8 and 71.5 respectively. Revisions for infection had higher mortality rates throughout the three time points of analysis. Patients’ survivorship for infected vs aseptic revisions was; 77.8% vs 87.7% at 5 years, 62.8% vs 76.5% at 10 years and 62.4% vs 72.0% at 18 years. The unadjusted 10-year risk ratio of death after infected revision was 1.58 (95% confidence interval 1.28–1.95) compared to aseptic revisions. rTHA performed for infection is associated with significantly higher long-term mortality at all time points compared to aseptic revision surgery.
Infection following total hip or knee arthroplasty is a serious complication. We noted an increase in post-operative infection in cases carried out in a temporary operating theatre. We therefore compared those cases performed in standard and temporary operating theatres and examined the deep periprosthetic infection rates. A total of 1233 primary hip and knee arthroplasties were performed between August 2012 and June 2013. 44% were performed in temporary theatres. The two groups were matched for age, sex, BMI and ASA grade. The deep infection rate for standard operating theatres was 0/684 (0%); for temporary theatres it was 8/539 (1.5%); p=0.001. Use of a temporary operating theatre for primary hip and knee arthroplasty was associated with an unacceptable increase in deep infection. We do not advocate the use of these theatres for primary joint arthroplasty.
Prophylactic antibiotics can decrease the risk
of wound infection and have been routinely employed in orthopaedic surgery
for decades. Despite their widespread use, questions still surround
the selection of antibiotics for prophylaxis, timing and duration
of administration. The health economic costs associated with wound
infections are significant, and the judicious but appropriate use
of antibiotics can reduce this risk. This review examines the evidence behind commonly debated topics
in antibiotic prophylaxis and highlights the uses and advantages
of some commonly used antibiotics. Cite this article:
