Mismatch in Capture of Periprosthetic Joint Infections Between the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) and a Detailed Regional Periprosthetic Joint Infection Registry.

Abstract

National arthroplasty registries are important sources for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) data and report an average incidence ranging from 0.5% to 2.0%. However, studies have shown that PJI incidence in national arthroplasty registries may be underestimated. Therefore, the incidence of PJI in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) was evaluated. We matched revisions due to infection within 90 days of index procedure in the LROI database (prospectively registered in 2014-2018) with acute PJI cases registered in a Regional Infection Cohort (RIC) and vice versa. The RIC comprised of 1 university hospital, 3 large orthopedic teaching hospitals and 4 general district hospitals, representing 11.3% of all Dutch arthroplasty procedures with a similar case mix. From the 352 acute PJIs in the RIC, 166 (47%) were registered in the LROI. Of the 186 confirmed PJI cases not registered in the LROI, 51% (n= 95) were a unregistered Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention procedure without component exchange. The remaining missing PJI cases (n= 91, 49%) were of administrative origin. The acute PJI incidence in the RIC was 1%, compared to a 0.6% incidence of revision <90 days due to infection from LROI data. Besides unregistered Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention procedures without component exchange, administrative errors are an important source of missing PJI data for the LROI, leading to underestimation of PJI incidence in the Netherlands. A national arthroplasty complication registry, linked to the LROI, might decrease the number of missing PJI cases. Although our study concerns Dutch data, it supports the scarce literature on PJI incidence obtained from national arthroplasty registries, which also reports an underestimation.