• Georgios K Triantafyllopoulos, Stavros G Memtsoudis, Haijun Wang, Yan Ma, Michael M Alexiades, and Lazaros A Poultsides.
• Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Division of Adult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement, Hospital for Special Surgery, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA.
• Hip Int. 2019 Nov 1; 29 (6): 597-602.

BackgroundThere is a concern for higher rates of wound complications and a potentially increased periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) risk after total hip arthroplasty (THA) with the direct anterior approach (DAA) compared to the posterolateral approach (PLA). Our purpose was to compare PJI risk after THA with the DAA or the PLA and to identify risk factors for PJI after primary THA.MethodsClinical characteristics of patients treated in our institution with primary DAA or PLA THA between 1/2010 and 12/2015 were retrospectively reviewed. The respective deep PJI rates were calculated. A logistic regression model was constructed to determine a potential difference in the PJI risk between the 2 groups, and risk factors for hip PJI in all patients.ResultsDuring the period studied, there were 1,182 DAA THAs and 18,853 PLA THAs. The PJI rate was 0.25% for the DAA group and 0.31% for the PLA group (p = 1.0). The DAA was not associated with a significantly increased risk for PJI compared to the PLA. Compared to younger patients, older patients had lower PJI risk; patient discharge to home was also associated with lower PJI risk compared to other discharge disposition; longer length of stay was associated with higher PJI risk compared to shorter length of stay.ConclusionThe DAA is equally safe compared the PLA with respect to PJI risk. Younger age, discharge to facilities other than home and increased length of stay increase the risk for deep PJI after primary THA.

27 keywords...

hide…