Reporting Outcomes of Treatment for Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Knee and Hip Together With a Minimum 1-Year Follow-Up is Reliable.

BACKGROUND

Although there is an increasing trend toward reporting the outcome of hip and knee arthroplasty separately, it remains unknown whether joint-specific reporting is necessary for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) as sample sizes are already low, given its relatively rare occurrence. The aim of this study is to compare treatment outcomes of PJI occurring after knee and hip arthroplasty. Furthermore, we aim to establish the necessary follow-up time for an accurate reporting of PJI treatment outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 792 cases of hip and knee PJI treated with irrigation and debridement or two-stage exchange arthroplasty from 2000 to 2017 was performed. Treatment failure was defined based on the Delphi method-based criteria. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves were generated, and a log-rank test was used to evaluate differences in survivorship. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression and a sensitivity analysis using propensity matching were performed. A two-piecewise linear regression model was used to examine the threshold effect of time after treatment on survival rates.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between hip and knee PJIs in overall survivorship (P = .71), or when stratified by irrigation and debridement (P = .39), or two-stage exchange arthroplasty (P = .59). There was also no difference by joint in the multivariate or sensitivity analysis. Survival rates had the most dramatic rates of decrease in the initial months after treatment of PJI but began to plateau after 1.09 years.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals no difference in treatment outcomes between knee and hip PJIs. In addition, given the difficulty with obtaining follow-up, we suggest that one-year follow-up is sufficient for an accurate reporting of treatment failure.