PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-5 (5)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
author:("Dale, havard")
1.  Prosthetic joint infections – a need for health economy studies 
Acta Orthopaedica  2014;85(3):218-220.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.913227
PMCID: PMC4062785  PMID: 24758324
2.  Increasing risk of prosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty 
Acta Orthopaedica  2012;83(5):449-458.
Background and purpose
The risk of revision due to infection after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be increasing in Norway. We investigated whether this increase is a common feature in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden).
Materials and methods
The study was based on the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) dataset. 432,168 primary THAs from 1995 to 2009 were included (Denmark: 83,853, Finland 78,106, Norway 88,455, and Sweden 181,754). Adjusted survival analyses were performed using Cox regression models with revision due to infection as the endpoint. The effect of risk factors such as the year of surgery, age, sex, diagnosis, type of prosthesis, and fixation were assessed.
Results
2,778 (0.6%) of the primary THAs were revised due to infection. Compared to the period 1995–1999, the relative risk (with 95% CI) of revision due to infection was 1.1 (1.0–1.2) in 2000–2004 and 1.6 (1.4–1.7) in 2005–2009. Adjusted cumulative 5–year revision rates due to infection were 0.46% (0.42–0.50) in 1995–1999, 0.54% (0.50–0.58) in 2000–2004, and 0.71% (0.66–0.76) in 2005–2009. The entire increase in risk of revision due to infection was within 1 year of primary surgery, and most notably in the first 3 months. The risk of revision due to infection increased in all 4 countries. Risk factors for revision due to infection were male sex, hybrid fixation, cement without antibiotics, and THA performed due to inflammatory disease, hip fracture, or femoral head necrosis. None of these risk factors increased in incidence during the study period.
Interpretation
We found increased relative risk of revision and increased cumulative 5–year revision rates due to infection after primary THA during the period 1995–2009. No change in risk factors in the NARA dataset could explain this increase. We believe that there has been an actual increase in the incidence of prosthetic joint infections after THA.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2012.733918
PMCID: PMC3488170  PMID: 23083433
3.  Infection after primary hip arthroplasty 
Acta Orthopaedica  2011;82(6):646-654.
Background and purpose
The aim of the present study was to assess incidence of and risk factors for infection after hip arthroplasty in data from 3 national health registries. We investigated differences in risk patterns between surgical site infection (SSI) and revision due to infection after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA).
Materials and methods
This observational study was based on prospective data from 2005–2009 on primary THAs and HAs from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR), the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (NHFR), and the Norwegian Surveillance System for Healthcare–Associated Infections (NOIS). The Norwegian Patient Register (NPR) was used for evaluation of case reporting. Cox regression analyses were performed with revision due to infection as endpoint for data from the NAR and the NHFR, and with SSI as the endpoint for data from the NOIS.
Results
The 1–year incidence of SSI in the NOIS was 3.0% after THA (167/5,540) and 7.3% after HA (103/1,416). The 1–year incidence of revision due to infection was 0.7% for THAs in the NAR (182/24,512) and 1.5% for HAs in the NHFR (128/8,262). Risk factors for SSI after THA were advanced age, ASA class higher than 2, and short duration of surgery. For THA, the risk factors for revision due to infection were male sex, advanced age, ASA class higher than 1, emergency surgery, uncemented fixation, and a National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance (NNIS) risk index of 2 or more. For HAs inserted after fracture, age less than 60 and short duration of surgery were risk factors of revision due to infection.
Interpretation
The incidences of SSI and revision due to infection after primary hip replacements in Norway are similar to those in other countries. There may be differences in risk pattern between SSI and revision due to infection after arthroplasty. The risk patterns for revision due to infection appear to be different for HA and THA.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2011.636671
PMCID: PMC3247879  PMID: 22066562
4.  Surgical procedures in the treatment of 784 infected THAs reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 
Acta Orthopaedica  2011;82(5):530-537.
Background and purpose
Controversies still exist regarding the best surgical procedure in the treatment of periprosthetic infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Based on data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR), we have compared the risk of re-revision after 4 different surgical procedures: 2-stage with exchange of the whole prosthesis, 1-stage with exchange of the whole prosthesis, major partial 1-stage with exchange of stem or cup, and minor partial 1-stage with exchange of femoral head and/or acetabular liner.
Methods
Between 1987 and 2009, 124,759 primary THAs were reported to the NAR, of which 906 (0.7%) were revised due to infection. Included in this study were the 784 revisions that had been performed by 1 of the 4 different surgical procedures. Cox-estimated survival and relative revision risks are presented with adjustment for differences among groups regarding gender, type of fixation, type of prosthesis, and age at revision.
Results
2-stage procedures were used in 283 revisions (36%), 1-stage in 192 revisions (25%), major partial in 129 revisions (17%), and minor partial in 180 revisions (23%). 2-year Kaplan-Meier survival for all revisions was 83%; it was 92% for those re-revised by 2-stage exchange procedure, 88% for those re-revised by 1-stage exchange procedure, 66% for those re-revised by major partial exchange procedure, and it was 76% for those re-revised by minor partial exchange. Compared to the 2-stage procedure and with any reason for revision as endpoint (180 re-revisions), the risk of re-revision increased 1.4 times for 1-stage (p = 0.2), 4.1 times for major partial exchange (p < 0.001), and 1.5 times for minor partial exchange (p = 0.1). With infection as the endpoint (108 re-revisions), the risk of re-revision increased 2.0 times for 1-stage exchange (p = 0.04), 6.0 times for major partial exchange (p < 0.001), and 2.3 times for minor partial exchange (p = 0.02). Similar results were found when the analyses were restricted to the period 2002–2009.
Interpretation
In the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, the survival after revision of infected primary THA with 2-stage implant exchange was slightly superior to that for 1-stage exchange of the whole prosthesis. This result is noteworthy, since 2-stage procedures are often used with the most severe infections. However, debridement with exchange of head and/or liner but with retention of the fixed implant (minor revision) meant that there was a 76% chance of not being re-revised within 2 years.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2011.623572
PMCID: PMC3242948  PMID: 21992085
5.  Increasing risk of revision due to deep infection after hip arthroplasty 
Acta Orthopaedica  2009;80(6):639-645.
Background and purpose Over the decades, improvements in surgery and perioperative routines have reduced the incidence of deep infections after total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is, however, some evidence to suggest that the incidence of infection is increasing again. We assessed the risk of revision due to deep infection for primary THAs reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) over the period 1987–2007.
Method We included all primary cemented and uncemented THAs reported to the NAR from September 15, 1987 to January 1, 2008 and performed adjusted Cox regression analyses with the first revision due to deep infection as endpoint. Changes in revision rate as a function of the year of operation were investigated.
Results Of the 97,344 primary THAs that met the inclusion criteria, 614 THAs had been revised due to deep infection (5-year survival 99.46%). Risk of revision due to deep infection increased throughout the period studied. Compared to the THAs implanted in 1987–1992, the risk of revision due to infection was 1.3 times higher (95%CI: 1.0–1.7) for those implanted in 1993–1997, 1.5 times (95% CI: 1.2–2.0) for those implanted in 1998–2002, and 3.0 times (95% CI: 2.2–4.0) for those implanted in 2003–2007. The most pronounced increase in risk of being revised due to deep infection was for the subgroup of uncemented THAs from 2003–2007, which had an increase of 5 times (95% CI: 2.6–11) compared to uncemented THAs from 1987–1992.
Interpretation The incidence of deep infection after THA increased during the period 1987–2007. Concomitant changes in confounding factors, however, complicate the interpretation of the results.
doi:10.3109/17453670903506658
PMCID: PMC2823304  PMID: 19995313

Results 1-5 (5)