Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T04:43:25.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reporting Surgical Site Infections Following Primary and Revision Hip Arthroplasty— One Size Does Not Fit All

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

LJ Worth ,
AL Bull  and
MJ Richards
LJ Worth*
Affiliation:
Victorian Hospital Acquired Infection Surveillance System (VICNISS) Coordinating Centre, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
AL Bull
Affiliation:
Victorian Hospital Acquired Infection Surveillance System (VICNISS) Coordinating Centre, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
MJ Richards
Affiliation:
Victorian Hospital Acquired Infection Surveillance System (VICNISS) Coordinating Centre, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
*
Victorian Hospital Acquired Infection Surveillance System (VICNISS) Coordinating Centre, 10 Wreckyn Street, North Melbourne, Victoria 3051, Australia (leon.worth@mh.org.au)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The risk of surgical site infection (SSI) is greater after revision hip arthroplasty than after primary procedures. While this is accepted as a clinical phenomenon, standardized surveillance strategies for healthcare-associated infections, including SSIs, do not currently take this into consideration. Most notably, the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) risk index for stratification does not differentiate between primary and revision surgeries. Using data from a single US center, Leekha et al. recently demonstrated that the risk for SSI was almost twice as high after revision total hip arthroplasty when compared to primary total hip arthroplasty and that risk was even greater when deep incisional or organ/space infections were analyzed. The objective of this study was to compare SSI rates following primary and revision hip arthroplasty in a much larger Australian population to determine whether differences are accounted for by current risk indexing.

Type
Research Brief
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , March 2011 , pp. 296 - 297
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Berbari, EF, Hanssen, AD, Duffy, MC, et al.Risk factors for prosthetic joint infection: case-control study. Clin Infect Dis 1998;27:1247–1254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Ahnfeit, L, Herberts, P, Malchau, H, Andersson, GB. Prognosis of total hip replacement: a Swedish multicenter study of 4,664 revisions. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 1990;238:1–26.Google Scholar
3.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). Patient Safety Component. Related material. NHSN Manual: Patient Safety Component Protocols. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/psc.html.Google Scholar
4.Leekha, S, Sampathkumar, P, Berry, DJ, Thompson, RL. Should national standards for reporting surgical site infections distinguish between primary and revision orthopaedic surgeries? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:503–508.Google Scholar
5.Friedman, ND, Bull, AL, Russo, PL, et al.Performance of the national nosocomial infections surveillance risk index in predicting surgical site infection in Australia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:55–59.Google Scholar
6.Wilson, J, Charlett, A, Leong, G, McDougall, C, Duckworth, G. Rates of surgical site infection after hip replacement as a hospital performance indicator: analysis of data from the English mandatory surveillance system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:219–226.Google Scholar