Affiliations: [a] Department of Orthopedics, Orthopädische Klinik, König-Ludwig-Haus, University of Wuerzburg, Würzburg, Germany | [b] Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Klinikum Grosshadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany | [c] Klinikum Würzburg Mitte, KWM-Standort Juliusspital, Würzburg, Germany
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding author: Philip Mark Anderson, Department of Orthopedics, Orthopädische Klinik, König-Ludwig-Haus, University of Wuerzburg, Brettreichstraße 11, 97074 Würzburg, Germany. E-mail: [email protected].
Abstract: BACKGROUND: The incidence of conversion total hip arthroplasty (cTHA) following reduction and fixation for proximal femur fractures will increase in parallel to the aging population worldwide. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to report the frequency of bacterial detection and the outcome of cTHA at the authors’ institution and to analyze preoperative factors that correlate with higher rates of bacterial growth and septic revision. METHODS: 48 patients who had been converted to THA after osteosynthesis of a proximal femur fracture either by a one- or two-stage procedure were included. Septic failure rate and the frequency of bacterial detection at the time of fixation device removal were calculated. The influence of different preoperative factors was examined by the odds ratio. A receiver operating characteristic curve of c-reactive protein (CRP) for detection of bacterial growth at the time of fixation device removal was calculated. RESULTS: 18.8% patients showed positive bacterial cultures, with Staph. epidermidis being the most frequent pathogen (33.3%). Septic failure after cTHA occurred in 4.2%. Fixation with cephalomedullary nails and complications with the internal fixation showed higher odds for bacterial growth at time of cTHA. CRP for predicting bacterial growth had an area under the curve of 0.661. Implant survival was worse when temporary spacers were used. CONCLUSION: Bacterial detection rate at the time of cTHA is high, whereas septic failure rates are low. Isolated evaluation of inflammatory blood markers without other diagnostic modalities for infection is not decisive and does not justify a two-stage approach with implantation of a temporary spacer.
Keywords: Conversion, total hip arthroplasty, hip, periprosthetic joint infection
