A comparison of postoperative microbiological and histological test results with the indication for revision as listed at the time of surgery in the National Joint Registry: a single-centre cohort study of metal-on-metal total hip replacement and hip resurfacing revision procedures

Abstract

Introduction:

Surgeons allocate an indication(s) for revision surgery on NJR Minimum Data Set forms in the immediate perioperative period, when results from intraoperative histology and microbiology samples are not available. We evaluated to what extent the postoperative diagnostics obtained for patients undergoing metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (MoMHA) revision surgery align with the indication for revision listed in the NJR.

Methods:

NJR data for MoMHA revision patients (2004–2015) at a single centre were linked to hospital records of microbiology and histology testing for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) and adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD). The Musculoskeletal Infection Society and Mirra classifications were used as “gold standards’ to classify PJI and ARMD respectively and to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the clinician selected revision indication recorded on MDS forms.

Results:

Of 301 cases, 5.6% (n = 17) and 3.7% (n = 11) were revised for PJI and ARMD respectively. In a further 6.6% (n = 20, PJI) and 15.6% (n = 47, ARMD) the indication for revision selected at the time of surgery did not corroborate with the test results from intraoperative samples. Diagnostic accuracy analysis revealed sensitivity and specificity of indication for surgery at the time of revision for PJI of 35.5% (95% CI, 19.2–54.6) and 97.8% (CI, 54.6–95.2) respectively, and for ARMD of 7.41% (CI, 2.06–17.9) and 97.2% (CI, 94.3–98.9) respectively.

Conclusions:

We observed that the results of histology and microbiology analyses of intraoperative samples may provide evidence to support alternative diagnoses in 20% of cases. This indicates a need for a change in the work-up of these cases to allow a more accurate prediction of the indication for revision. Alternatively, if there was evidence of a difference in outcome for patients where the indication may be changed when such data becomes available, the feasibility of a facility to add additional information from samples taken intraoperatively when it becomes available should be explored.

Keywords

Adverse soft tissue reaction to particulate debris diagnostic accuracy hip arthroplasty infection registry revision

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Evans

Walker

, et al. How long does a hip replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet 2019; 393: 647–654.

Report THA. 17th annual report. Corp Gov. 2020 https://reports.njrcentre.org.uk/portals/0/pdfdownloads/njr%2017th%20annual%20report%202020.pdf (2019, accessed 14 August 2021).

Anakwe

Jenkins

Moran

. Predicting dissatisfaction after total hip arthroplasty: a study of 850 patients. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26: 209–213.

ISAR. http://www.isarhome.org (2019, accessed 14 August 2021).

Afzal

Radha

Smoljanović

, et al. Validation of revision data for total hip and knee replacements undertaken at a high volume orthopaedic centre against data held on the National Joint Registry. J Orthop Surg Res 2019; 14: 318.

Blom

Taylor

Pattison

, et al. Infection after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003; 85: 956–959.

Corvec

Portillo

Pasticci

, et al. Epidemiology and new developments in the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. Int J Artif Organs 2012; 35: 923–934.

Moore

Blom

Whitehouse

, et al. Deep prosthetic joint infection: a qualitative study of the impact on patients and their experiences of revision surgery. BMJ Open 2015; 5: e009495.

Garfield

Noble

Lenguerrand

, et al. What are the inpatient and day case costs following primary total hip replacement of patients treated for prosthetic joint infection: a matched cohort study using linked data from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics. BMC Med 2020; 18: 335.

10.

Smith

Dieppe

Vernon

, et al.; National Joint Registry of England and Waleset. Failure rates of stemmed metal-on-metal hip replacements: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Lancet 2012; 379: 1199–1204.

11.

Bozic

Kurtz

Lau

, et al. The epidemiology of bearing surface usage in total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: 1614–1620.

12.

Smith

Dieppe

Howard

, et al. Failure rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacings: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 2012; 380: 1759–1766.

13.

Matharu

Judge

Murray

, et al. Outcomes after metal-on-metal hip revision surgery depend on the reason for failure: a propensity score-matched study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2018; 476: 245–258.

14.

Athanasou

. The pathobiology and pathology of aseptic implant failure. Bone Joint Res 2016; 5: 162–168.

15.

Langton

Joyce

Jameson

, et al. Adverse reaction to metal debris following hip resurfacing: the influence of component type, orientation, and volumetric wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93: 164–171.

16.

Grammatopoulos

Pandit

Kamali

, et al. The correlation of wear with histological features after failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95: e81.

17.

National Joint Registry. https://www.njrcentre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MDSv7.0-H2-V6.0.pdf, 2017.

18.

von Knoch

Marchie

Malchau

. Total joint registries: a foundation for evidence-based arthroplasty. Virtual Mentor 2010; 12: 124–129.

19.

Sabah

Henckel

Koutsouris

, et al. Are all metal-on-metal hip revision operations contributing to the National Joint Registry implant survival curves?: a study comparing the London Implant Retrieval Centre and National Joint Registry datasets. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B: 33–39.

20.

Zhu

Ravi

Frampton

, et al. New Zealand Joint Registry data underestimates the rate of prosthetic joint infection. Acta Orthop 2016; 87: 346–350.

21.

Bolland

Whitehouse

Timperley

. Indications for early hip revision surgery in the UK - a re-analysis of NJR data. Hip Int 2012; 22: 145–152.

22.

equator network. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies, https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/stard/ (2015, accessed 16 August 2021).

23.

Parvizi

Tan

Goswami

, et al. The 2018 definition of periprosthetic hip and knee infection: an evidence-based and validated criteria. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 1309–1314.e2.

24.

Aroukatos

Repanti

Repantis

, et al. Immunologic adverse reaction associated with low-carbide metal-on-metal bearings in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 2135–2142.

25.

Whiting

Rutjes

Westwood

, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 529–536.

26.

Gundtoft

Pedersen

Schønheyder

, et al. Validation of the diagnosis “prosthetic joint infection” in the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B: 320–325.

27.

McNally

Sousa

Wouthuyzen-Bakker

, et al. The EBJIS definition of periprosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J 2021; 103-B: 18–25.