Operating room ventilation and the risk of revision due to infection after total hip arthroplasty: assessment of validated data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

H. Langvatn*, J.C. Schrama, G. Cao, G. Hallan, O. Furnes, E. Lingaas, G. Walenkamp, L.B. Engesaeter, H. Dale

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

11 Citations (Web of Science)

Abstract

Background: The air in the operating room is considered a risk factor for surgical site infection (SSI) due to airborne bacteria shed from the surgical staff or from patients themselves.Aim: To assess the influence of validated operating room (OR) ventilation data on the risk of revision surgery due to deep infection after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR).Methods: Forty orthopaedic units reporting THAs to the NAR during the period 2005-2015 were included. The true type of OR ventilation in all hospitals at the time of primary THA was confirmed in a previous study. Unidirectional airflow (UDF) systems were subdivided into: small, low-volume, unidirectional vertical flow (IvUDVF) systems; large, high-volume, unidirectional vertical flow (hvUDVF) systems; and unidirectional horizontal flow (UDHF) systems. These three ventilation groups were compared with conventional, turbulent, mixing ventilation (CV). The association between the end-point, time to revision due to infection, and OR ventilation was estimated by calculating relative risks (RRs) in a multivariate Cox regression model, with adjustments for several patient- and surgery-related covariates.Findings: A total of 51,292 primary THAs were eligible for assessment. Of these, 575 had been revised due to infection. A similar risk of revision due to infection after THA performed was found in ORs with lvUDVF and UDHF compared to CV. THAs performed in ORs with hvUDVF had lower risk of revision due to infection compared to CV (RR = 0.8; 95% CI: 0.6-0.9; P = 0.01).Conclusion: THAs performed in ORs with hvUDVF systems had lower risk of revision due to infection compared to THAs performed in ORs with CV systems. The perception that all UDF systems are similar and possibly harmful seems erroneous. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Healthcare Infection Society.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)216-224
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Hospital Infection
Volume105
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2020

Keywords

  • airborne contamination
  • deep infection
  • knee replacement
  • laminar air-flow
  • laminar airflow
  • norwegian arthroplasty
  • operating room ventilation
  • periprosthetic joint infection
  • postoperative infection
  • prosthetic joint infection
  • register
  • surgical site infections
  • theater ventilation
  • total hip arthroplasty
  • ultraclean air
  • unidirectional airflow
  • wound contamination
  • Unidirectional airflow
  • WOUND CONTAMINATION
  • Norwegian Arthroplasty
  • AIRBORNE CONTAMINATION
  • Laminar airflow
  • Periprosthetic joint infection
  • DEEP INFECTION
  • Total hip arthroplasty
  • PROSTHETIC JOINT INFECTION
  • THEATER VENTILATION
  • POSTOPERATIVE INFECTION
  • SURGICAL SITE INFECTIONS
  • KNEE REPLACEMENT
  • Register
  • Operating room ventilation
  • ULTRACLEAN AIR
  • LAMINAR AIR-FLOW

Cite this