Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Aug 17:48:156-162.
doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2024.08.002. eCollection 2024 Sep.

Prevalence, risk factors, microbiological results and clinical outcome in unexpected positive intraoperative cultures in unclear and presumed aseptic hip and knee revision arthroplasties - A ten-year retrospective analysis with a minimum follow up of 2 years

Affiliations

Prevalence, risk factors, microbiological results and clinical outcome in unexpected positive intraoperative cultures in unclear and presumed aseptic hip and knee revision arthroplasties - A ten-year retrospective analysis with a minimum follow up of 2 years

Sebastian Simon et al. J Orthop Translat. .

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence, microbiological spectrum, risk factors, and clinical outcomes of unexpected-positive-intraoperative-cultures (UPIC) in presumed aseptic and unclear revision-total-hip-/knee-arthroplasties (rTHA and rTKA) compared to culture-negative (CN) revisions.

Methods: This study reviewed all International-consensus-meeting-2018 (ICM 2018) negative or inconclusive rTHA (n = 751) and rTKA (n = 679) performed at our institution from 2011 to 2020 with a minimum follow-up of two years. A Kaplan-Meier-analysis was performed to determine the septic and aseptic-free implant survival in cases with UPIC's and matched culture-negative cases. Patient demographics, risk factors, microbiological spectrum and clinical outcomes were evaluated.

Results: There were significantly more UPIC cases in rTHA 196/751 (26.1 %) compared to rTKA 113/679 (16.6 %); (p < 0.001). UPICs in rTKA and rTHA have a lower septic and aseptic implant-free-survival compared to CN revisions. Patients with a history of nickel allergy have a higher risk of an UPIC in rTHA and rTKA (p < 0.001). Septic re-revisions after UPIC had a significantly (H: p = 0.004; K: p = 0.030) shorter time period to the primary/previous surgery (H: 84 (IQR:41-797); K: 115 (IQR:55-446)) compared to patients with aseptic re-revisions after UPIC (H:1248 (IQR:178-3534); K: 827 (IQR:361-1183)).

Conclusion: UPICs have a higher rate of septic and aseptic failure than CN outcomes. UPICs are twice as common in rTHA compared to rTKA. Preoperative PJI workup reduces the UPIC rate. Nickel allergy is a risk factor for UPIC. Early revisions with UPICs after primary THA or TKA have a higher risk of septic failure.

The translational potential of this article: This article provides new information on revision rates for UPIC and potential risk factors for UPIC and its treatment failure.

Keywords: Aseptic implant-free survival; Revision-total-hip-arthroplasty; Revision-total-knee-arthroplasty; Risk factors; Septic and unexpected-positive-intraoperative-cultures.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Figures

Image 1
Graphical abstract
Figure 1
Figure 1
Aseptic free implant survival after 1a, 2a, 5a and 10a (95%-Confidence-interval); a (years), CN (culture negative), UPIC (unexpected positive intraoperative cultures.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Septic free implant survival after 1a, 2a, 5a and 10a (95%-Confidence-interval); a (years), CN (culture negative), UPIC (unexpected positive intraoperative cultures.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Heckmann N.D., Yang J., Ong K.L., Lau E.C., Fuller B.C., Bohl D.D., et al. Revision surgery for instability after total hip arthroplasty: does timing matter? J Arthroplasty. 2021;36:1779–1783.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.12.035. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lewis P.L., Robertsson O., Graves S.E., Paxton E.W., Prentice H.A., W-Dahl A. Variation and trends in reasons for knee replacement revision: a multi-registry study of revision burden. Acta Orthop. 2021;92:182–188. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1853340. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kingsbury S.R., Smith L.K., Shuweihdi F., West R., Czoski Murray C., Conaghan P.G., et al. A comparative study of patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision hip or knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint Lett J. 2022;104-B:59–67. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.104B1.BJJ-2021-0032.R2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hipfl C., Mooij W., Perka C., Hardt S., Wassilew G.I. Unexpected low-grade infections in revision hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening. Bone Joint Lett J. 2021;103-B:1070–1077. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B6.BJJ-2020-2002.R1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Purudappa P.P., Sharma O.P., Priyavadana S., Sambandam S., Villafuerte J.A. Unexpected positive intraoperative cultures (UPIC) in revision Hip and knee arthroplasty- A review of the literature. J Orthop. 2020;17:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2019.06.028. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources