PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 12, 2026Acta Orthopaedica0 citationsOpen Access

Validation of periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty: a cohort study on 423 cases from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

View Full Paper
MMMartin MossigeOLOlav LutroAFAnne Marie Fenstad

Key Points

  • This study aims to validate the accuracy of orthopedic surgeons' reports on reoperations for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
  • Assessed clinical, biochemical, and microbiological data on 423 patients
  • Applied the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) definition of PJI
  • Determined sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for reported cases of PJI
  • Out of 423 reoperations, 170 were initially reported as due to PJI, with 94% (159 of 170) confirmed as PJI after validation.
  • 5% (13 of 253) cases reported as reoperations for causes other than PJI were validated as PJI.
  • The sensitivity for PJI reporting was 92%, specificity 96%, and overall accuracy 94%.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Accurate reporting is essential for quality development and research based on data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR). Our study aimed to validate Norwegian orthopedic surgeons' reporting of reoperations for PJI. METHODS: We assessed detailed clinical, biochemical, and microbiological data on 423 patients reported to the NAR for reoperations after primary TKA performed in Western Norway in the period from 2010 to 2023. We used the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) definition of PJI. For each cause of reoperation (including causes that could mimic PJI, such as aseptic loosening, prolonged wound drainage, and pain alone), we determined the sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values, and accuracy. RESULTS: Of 423 reoperations, 170 were reported reoperations due to PJI. After validation, 94% (159 of 170) were confirmed to be due to PJI. Furthermore, 5% (13 of 253) of cases reported as reoperated due to causes other than deep infection were validated as PJI. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for PJI reporting were 92%, 96%, and 94%, respectively. Accuracy for aseptic loosening, prolonged wound drainage, and pain alone was 97%, 94%, and 98%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of reporting of reoperations due to PJI is high, thereby affirming the quality of reoperation data concerning PJI submitted to the NAR. Our findings support the use of NAR data in quality development and research.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Mossige et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a2ba44e8101cf8926f02b90https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2026.46073
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Low rate of infected knee replacements in a nationwide series—is it an underestimate?2009 · 68 citations
  2. 2Enhancing the data capture of periprosthetic joint infections in the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry: validity assessment and incidence estimation2024 · 14 citations
  3. 3The Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register2016 · 88 citations
  4. 4The Reliability of Diagnosis of Infection during Revision Arthroplasties2002 · 104 citations
  5. 5Predictors of wound infection in hip and knee joint replacement: results from a 20 year surveillance program2002 · 398 citations