Risk of Periprosthetic Joint Infection after Posttraumatic Hip Arthroplasty following Acetabular Fractures

Abstract

Background Raised complication rates have been reported for total hip arthroplasty (THA) in posttraumatic hip joints after acetabular fractures with prior open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The present study evaluated (I) postoperative surgical site infection and the risk of early infection following THA in posttraumatic hip joints after acetabular fractures and (II) the discriminatory ability of preoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) blood levels for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

Materials and Methods Patients were included who had undergone THA (2014–2019) after prior ORIF, and nonsurgically treated acetabular fractures. Patients’ demographics and the duration between fracture and THA implantation were assessed. Preoperative diagnostic testing (laboratory results, hip aspirations) as well as the results of intraoperative microbiological swabs and sonication were also evaluated. Postoperative complications were recorded.

Results Sixty-seven patients (51 men/16 women) were included, with a mean age of 54.7 ± 14.0 years (range: 18.0–82.9). The mean time between acetabular fracture and THA was 13.5 ± 14.9 years (0.2–53.5). Four subgroups were classified: subgroup I (nonsurgical, n = 15), subgroup II (complete removal of osteosynthesis, n = 8), subgroup III (partial removal of osteosynthesis, n = 15), and subgroup IV (remaining osteosynthesis, n = 29). Preoperative CRP blood levels were normal. CRP levels had no discriminatory ability to predict PJI (AUC: 0.43). Positive microbiological swabs were assessed in subgroups III (n = 1) and IV (n = 2). Complications during follow-up occurred in subgroups I (one aseptic loosening [6.7%]), III (one wound revision [6.7%], two low-grade infections [13.3%]), and IV (three low-grade infections [10.3%]).

Conclusion High infection rates were found in patients with THA after acetabular fracture with remaining implants or partial implant removal. Serum CRP alone seems to be a poor predictor. Therefore, an extensive diagnostic algorithm can help to detect an occult infection, including preoperative hip aspiration (microbiological samples and measurements of synovial CRP, WBC, and alpha-defensin levels). Intraoperative tissue samples and sonication results should be obtained during THA implantation.

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund Die Implantation einer Hüftotalendoprothese (H-TEP) bei posttraumatischer Coxarthrose ist mit höheren Komplikationsraten behaftet, wenn zuvor eine Acetabulumfraktur durch eine offene Reposition und interner Fixierung (ORIF) versorgt wurde. In der vorliegenden Studie wurde die (I) postoperative Komplikationsrate und das Risiko einer frühen Infektion nach HTEP bei posttraumatischen Hüftgelenken nach Acetabulumfraktur, sowie (II) die diskriminierende Fähigkeit des präoperativen C-reaktiven Proteins (CRP) im Blut für periprothetische Infekte untersucht.

Material und Methoden Eingeschlossen wurden Patienten, die sich einer H-TEP-Implantation (2014–2019) nach vorheriger ORIF unterzogen, sowie konservativ behandelte Acetabulumfrakturen. Die demografischen Daten der Patienten und die Dauer zwischen Fraktur und H-TEP-Implantation wurden untersucht. Die präoperative Diagnostik (Laborergebnisse, Hüftpunktion) sowie die Ergebnisse der intraoperativen mikrobiologischen Abstriche und der Sonikation wurden ebenfalls ausgewertet. Des Weiteren wurden die postoperativen Komplikationen erfasst.

Ergebnisse 67 Patienten (51 Männer/16 Frauen) mit einem Durchschnittsalter von 54,7 ± 14,0 Jahren (Spanne: 18,0–82,9) wurden eingeschlossen. Die mittlere Zeitspanne zwischen Acetabulumfraktur und H-TEP betrug 13,5 ± 14,9 Jahre (0,2–53,5). Es wurden vier Untergruppen eingeteilt: Untergruppe I (konservativ, n = 15), Untergruppe II (vollständige Materialentfernung (ME), n = 8), Untergruppe III (partielle ME, n = 15) und Untergruppe IV (keine ME, n = 29). Präoperative CRP-Werte hatten keine Aussagekraft zur Vorhersage von PJI (AUC: 0,43). Positive mikrobiologische Abstriche wurden in den Untergruppen III (n = 1) und IV (n = 2) gefunden. Komplikationen während des Follow-Up traten in den Untergruppen I (eine aseptische Lockerung [6,7%]), III (eine Wundrevision [6,7%], zwei Low-Grade-Infektionen [13,3%]) und IV (drei Low-Grade- Infektionen [10,3%]) auf.

Schlussfolgerung Bei Patienten mit H-TEP-Implantation nach Acetabulumfraktur ohne vorherige Materialentfernung oder partieller Materialentfernung wurden höhere Infektionsraten gefunden. Das Serum-CRP allein scheint ein schlechter Prädiktor zu sein. Daher kann ein umfassender diagnostischer Algorithmus zur Erkennung einer okkulten Infektion beitragen und sollte eine präoperative Hüftaspiration (mikrobiologische Proben und Messungen des synovialen CRP-, WBC- und Alpha-Defensin-Spiegels) beinhalten. Intraoperative Gewebeproben und die Sonikation sollten während der HTEP-Implantation durchgeführt werden.

Keywords

acetabular fracture - total hip arthroplasty - PJI - posttraumatic hip osteoarthritis - THA

Schlüsselwörter

Acetabulumfraktur - Hüfttotalendoprothese - H-TEP - periprothetische Infektion - HTP

^* This article is a republished version of: Schmidutz F, Schreiner AJ, Ahrend MD, Stöckle U, Maier S, Histing T, Hemmann P. Risk of Periprosthetic Joint Infection after Posttraumatic Hip Arthroplasty following Acetabular Fractures. Z Orthop Unfall 2023; 161(6):671–677.

Publication History

Article published online:
09 January 2025

• References

• 1 Laird A, Keating JF. Acetabular fractures: a 16-year prospective epidemiological study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87: 969-973
• 2 Dailey SK, Phillips CT, Radley JM, Archdeacon MT. Achieving Anatomic Acetabular Fracture Reduction-When is the Best Time to Operate?. J Orthop Trauma 2016; 30: 426-431
• 3 Dawson P, Dunne L, Raza H. et al. Total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of osteoarthritis secondary to acetabular fractures treated by open reduction and internal fixation. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2019; 29: 1049-1054
• 4 Rollmann MF, Holstein JH, Pohlemann T. et al. Predictors for secondary hip osteoarthritis after acetabular fractures-a pelvic registry study. Int Orthop 2019; 43: 2167-2173
• 5 Giannoudis PV, Grotz MR, Papakostidis C. et al. Operative treatment of displaced fractures of the acetabulum. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87: 2-9
• 6 Makridis KG, Obakponovwe O, Bobak P. et al. Total hip arthroplasty after acetabular fracture: incidence of complications, reoperation rates and functional outcomes: evidence today. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 1983-1990
• 7 Frank C, Siozos P, Wentzensen A. et al. Total hip replacement for coxarthrosis following acetabular fracture. Significance of age and injury severity. Unfallchirurg 2010; 113: 1013-1022
• 8 Morison Z, Moojen DJ, Nauth A. et al. Total Hip Arthroplasty After Acetabular Fracture Is Associated With Lower Survivorship and More Complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474: 392-398
• 9 Ryan SP, DiLallo M, Attarian DE. et al. Conversion vs Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Increased Cost of Care and Perioperative Complications. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 2405-2411
• 10 Stibolt RD, Patel HA, Huntley SR. et al. Total hip arthroplasty for posttraumatic osteoarthritis following acetabular fracture: A systematic review of characteristics, outcomes, and complications. Chin J Traumatol 2018; 21: 176-181
• 11 Knabl L, Kuppelwieser B, Mayr A. et al. High percentage of microbial colonization of osteosynthesis material in clinically unremarkable patients. Microbiologyopen 2019; 8: e00658
• 12 Perez-Prieto D, Portillo ME, Puig-Verdie L. et al. C-reactive protein may misdiagnose prosthetic joint infections, particularly chronic and low-grade infections. Int Orthop 2017; 41: 1315-1319
• 13 Busch A, Stockle U, Schreiner A. et al. Total hip arthroplasty following acetabular fracture: a clinical and radiographic outcome analysis of 67 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2020; 140: 331-341
• 14 Schnaser E, Scarcella NR, Vallier HA. Acetabular fractures converted to total hip arthroplasties in the elderly: how does function compare to primary total hip arthroplasty?. J Orthop Trauma 2014; 28: 694-699
• 15 Parvizi J, Tan TL, Goswami K. et al. The 2018 Definition of Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infection: An Evidence-Based and Validated Criteria. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 1309-1314.e2
• 16 Cichos KH, Christie MC, Heatherly AR. et al. The Value of Serological Screening Prior to Conversion Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (Suppl. 06) S319-S324
• 17 Gavaskar AS, Gopalan H, Karthik B. et al. Delayed Total Hip Arthroplasty for Failed Acetabular Fractures: The Influence of Initial Fracture Management on Outcome After Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 872-876
• 18 Wang Q, Goswami K, Shohat N. et al. Longer Operative Time Results in a Higher Rate of Subsequent Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Patients Undergoing Primary Joint Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34: 947-953
• 19 Aali Rezaie A, Blevins K, Kuo FC. et al. Total Hip Arthroplasty After Prior Acetabular Fracture: Infection Is a Real Concern. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35: 2619-2623
• 20 Huerfano E, Bautista M, Huerfano M. et al. Screening for Infection Before Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-analysis of Likelihood Ratios of Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate and Serum C-reactive Protein Levels. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2017; 25: 809-817
• 21 Lucchini S, Castagnini F, Giardina F. et al. Cementless ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty in post-traumatic osteoarthritis after acetabular fracture: long-term results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2021; 141: 683-691
• 22 Bereza PL, Ekiel A, Augusciak-Duma A. et al. Identification of silent prosthetic joint infection: preliminary report of a prospective controlled study. Int Orthop 2013; 37: 2037-2043
• 23 Nelson CL, McLaren AC, McLaren SG. et al. Is aseptic loosening truly aseptic?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; (437) 25-30
• 24 Rothenberg AC, Wilson AE, Hayes JP. et al. Sonication of Arthroplasty Implants Improves Accuracy of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Cultures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475: 1827-1836
• 25 Tarabichi M, Shohat N, Goswami K. et al. Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: The Potential of Next-Generation Sequencing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100: 147-154
• 26 Palmowski Y, Pumberger M, Perka C. et al. Is implant sonication useful when screening for infection in conversion of prior hip fracture fixation to total hip arthroplasty?. J Int Med Res 2021; 49: 3000605211028123
• 27 Qin L, Li X, Wang J. et al. Improved diagnosis of chronic hip and knee prosthetic joint infection using combined serum and synovial IL-6 tests. Bone Joint Res 2020; 9: 587-592
• 28 Zhang Z, Cai Y, Bai G. et al. The value of calprotectin in synovial fluid for the diagnosis of chronic prosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint Res 2020; 9: 450-457
• 29 Qin L, Hu N, Li X. et al. Evaluation of synovial fluid neutrophil CD64 index as a screening biomarker of prosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J 2020; 102-B: 463-469
• 30 Paziuk T, Rondon AJ, Goswami K. et al. A Novel Adjunct Indicator of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Platelet Count and Mean Platelet Volume. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35: 836-839