Infection in hip arthroplasty after previous injection of steroid

Scedosporium prolificans Septic Arthritis and Osteomyelitis of the Hip Joints in an Immunocompetent Patient: A Case Report and Literature Review

Scedosporium prolificans, also known as Scedosporium inflatum, is a fungus widespread in soil, sewage, and manure. This species is highly virulent and is an emerging opportunistic pathogen found in penetrating injuries in immunocompromised patients. Here we report on an immunocompetent patient with bilateral hip S. prolificans-associated osteomyelitis and septic arthritis caused by intentional penetrating trauma. The condition was refractory to initial antimicrobial suppression and surgical irrigation and debridement. Successful outcome was achieved after incorporating a bilateral two-stage total-hip-arthroplasty with Voriconazole-loaded cement and spacer.

Preoperative Hip Injections Increase the Rate of Periprosthetic Infection After Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Intraarticular injections are both diagnostic and therapeutic for patients with osteoarthritis. A potential risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) may occur from direct inoculation and/or immune suppression by corticosteroids. Large population-level databases were used to evaluate hip injection on the 1-year rate of PJI in patients undergoing primary THA.

METHODS

State-level ambulatory surgery and inpatient databases for Florida and California (2005-2012) were used to identify primary THA patients with 1-year preoperative and postoperative windows to evaluate possible injections or PJI, respectively. Patients were grouped as no injection or as THA performed 6-12 months, 3-6 months, or 0-3 months after injection. Risk adjustment was performed with multivariable regression.

RESULTS

A total of 173,958 patients were included; 5421 (3.1%) underwent THA after an injection: 1395 (1.1%) of patients after 6-12 months, 1863 patients after 3-6 months, and 2163 (1.2%) after 0-3 months. In the 0-3 month group, PJI was significantly increased at 3 months (1.58%, P = .015), 6 months (1.76%, P = .022), and 1 year (2.04%, P = .031) compared with the noninjection control group (1.04%, 1.21%, and 1.47%, respectively). There were no differences in the 3- to 6-month and 6- to 12-month injection groups.

CONCLUSION

There is an increased risk of PJI when THA is performed within 3 months of hip injection. We recommend that patients and their surgeons consider delaying elective THA until 3 months after an injection to avoid this elevated risk of infection.

Prosthetic Device Infections

The immunocompromised host is a particularly vulnerable population in whom routine and unusual infections can easily and frequently occur. Prosthetic devices are commonly used in these patients and the infections associated with those devices present a number of challenges for both the microbiologist and the clinician. Biofilms play a major role in device-related infections, which may contribute to failed attempts to recover organisms from routine culture methods. Moreover, device-related microorganisms can be difficult to eradicate by antibiotic therapy alone. Changes in clinical practice and advances in laboratory diagnostics have provided significant improvements in the detection and accurate diagnosis of device-related infections. Disruption of the bacterial biofilm plays an essential role in recovering the causative agent in culture. Various culture and nucleic acid amplification techniques are more accurate to guide directed treatment regimens. This chapter reviews the performance characteristics of currently available diagnostic assays and summarizes published guidelines, where available, for addressing suspected infected prosthetic devices.

Intra-articular steroid injection for osteoarthritis of the hip prior to total hip arthroplasty

Aims

Using a systematic review, we investigated whether there is an increased risk of post-operative infection in patients who have received an intra-articular corticosteroid injection to the hip for osteoarthritis prior to total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods

Studies dealing with an intra-articular corticosteroid injection to the hip and infection following subsequent THA were identified from databases for the period between 1990 to 2013. Retrieved articles were independently assessed for their methodological quality.

Results

A total of nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Two recommended against a steroid injection prior to THA and seven found no risk with an injection. No prospective controlled trials were identified. Most studies were retrospective. Lack of information about the methodology was a consistent flaw.

Conclusions

The literature in this area is scarce and the evidence is weak. Most studies were retrospective, and confounding factors were poorly defined or not addressed. There is thus currently insufficient evidence to conclude that an intra-articular corticosteroid injection administered prior to THA increases the rate of infection. High quality, multicentre randomised trials are needed to address this issue. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1027–35.

The timing of elective shoulder surgery after shoulder injection affects postoperative infection risk in Medicare patients

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study was to employ a national database to evaluate the association of preoperative injection before shoulder arthroscopy and arthroplasty with the incidence of postoperative infection.

METHODS

A national database of Medicare patients was queried for patients who underwent shoulder arthroscopy or arthroplasty after ipsilateral shoulder injection. Three arthroscopy cohorts were created: arthroscopy within 3 months of injection (n = 3625), arthroscopy between 3 and 12 months after injection (n = 7069), and matched control arthroscopy without prior injection (n = 186,678). Three arthroplasty cohorts were created: arthroplasty within 3 months of injection (n = 636), arthroplasty between 3 and 12 months after injection (n = 1573), and matched control arthroplasty (n = 6211). Infection rates within 3 and 6 months postoperatively were assessed.

RESULTS

The incidence of infection after arthroscopy at 3 months (0.7%; odds ratio [OR], 2.2; P < .0001) and 6 months (1.1%; OR, 1.6; P = .003) was significantly higher in patients who underwent injection within 3 months before arthroscopy compared with controls. The incidence of infection after arthroplasty at 3 months (3.0%; OR, 2.0; P = .007) and 6 months (4.6%; OR, 2.0; P = .001) was significantly higher in patients who underwent injection within 3 months before arthroplasty compared with controls.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant increase in postoperative infection in Medicare patients who underwent injection within 3 months before shoulder arthroscopy and arthroplasty. This association was not noted when shoulder arthroscopy or arthroplasty occurred >3 months after injection.

The effects of pre-operative intra-articular glenohumeral corticosteroid injection on infective complications after shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Many shoulder surgeons use intra-articular corticosteroid injections (IACI) in shoulder osteoarthritis, with the caveat that it precludes arthroplasty for at least 6 months to 12 months because of the theoretical risk of infection. To our knowledge, there is nothing available in the literature to support this notion.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective, matched cohort study of all patients who underwent shoulder arthroplasty in our unit between December 2010 and December 2013 aiming to assess whether pre-operative IACI had an impact on infective complications. Group I had received an IACI prior to their arthroplasty and Group II had not. A chi-squared analysis was performed (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Group I comprised 23 patients with a mean age of 73 years (range 54 years to 90 years) had 23 shoulder arthroplasties and had mean follow-up of 16.6 months. Patients received an IACI approximately 11.4 months (range 2.5 months to 172.5 months) before their surgery. One patient developed a deep joint infection that warranted revision arthroplasty. Group II comprised 60 patients with a mean age of 75 years (range 34 years to 90 years) had 64 shoulder arthoplasties and a mean follow-up of 20.1 months. No patients developed infective complications (p > 0.05), implying there was no statistically significant relationship between pre-operative IACI and infective complications.

CONCLUSIONS

We could not establish a causal link between IACI and infective complications after arthoplasty.

Infection prevention in total knee arthroplasty

Periprosthetic joint infections are devastating complications that are difficult and expensive to treat and have a substantial mortality rate. A major goal of modern joint arthroplasty is to minimize these infections. Preoperative factors associated with increased risk of infection include malnutrition, diabetes mellitus, obesity (body mass index >40 kg/m(2)), and rheumatoid arthritis. Administration of appropriate antibiotics before the surgical incision is made is essential to minimize infection. The use of laminar flow rooms, proper skin preparation, limiting operating room traffic, and the use of various wound closure techniques can help to decrease infection rates. Postoperatively, optimal management of indwelling urinary catheters, blood transfusions, and wound drainage also may decrease infection rates.

Common contra-indications and interactions of drugs in orthopaedic practice

Drug therapy forms an integral part of the management of many orthopaedic conditions. However, many medicines can produce serious adverse reactions if prescribed inappropriately, either alone or in combination with other drugs. Often these hazards are not appreciated. In response to this, the European Union recently issued legislation regarding safety measures which member states must adopt to minimise the risk of errors of medication. In March 2014 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and NHS England released a Patient Safety Alert initiative focussed on errors of medication. There have been similar initiatives in the United States under the auspices of The National Coordinating Council for Medication Error and The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. These initiatives have highlighted the importance of informing and educating clinicians. Here, we discuss common drug interactions and contra-indications in orthopaedic practice. This is germane to safe and effective clinical care.

Dose intraarticular steroid injection increase the rate of infection in subsequent arthroplasty: grading the evidence through a meta-analysis

Background

Intraarticular steroid injections are widely used in joint arthritis. However, the data regarding an association between an increased risk for arthroplasty infection after an intraarticular steroid injection are still conflicting. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the evidence from relevant studies that examine the relation between intraarticular steroid injections and infection rates in subsequent joint arthroplasty and to develop GRADE based recommendations for using the steroid before arthroplasty.

Methods

A systematic search of all studies published through August 2014 was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, ScienceDirect and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. The relevant studies that examined the relation between intraarticular steroid injections and infection rates in subsequent joint arthroplasty were identified. Demographic characteristics, infection rates and clinical outcomes were manually extracted from all of the selected studies. The evidence quality levels and recommendations were assessed using the GRADE system.

Results

Eight studies looking at hip and knee arthroplasties were included. Meta-analysis showed that patients with steroid injection before arthroplasty had a higher deep infection rate than patients without steroid injection (OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.02-4.45), but no significant effect on superficial infection rate (OR = 1.75, 95% CI 0.74-4.16). The overall GRADE system evidence quality was very low, which lowers our confidence in their recommendations.

Conclusions

Intraarticular steroid injections may lead to increased deep infection rates of subsequent joint arthroplasty but not the superficial infection rates. Due to the poor quality of the evidence currently available, further studies are still required.

Do intra-articular steroid injections increase infection rates in subsequent arthroplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

Intra-articular steroid injections are widely used in joint arthritis. The safety of such injections has been questioned as they may increase infection rates in subsequent arthroplasty. We carried out a meta-analysis of studies examining the relation between intra-articular steroid injections and infection rates in subsequent joint arthroplasty. A literature search was undertaken. Eight studies looking at hip and knee arthroplasties were analyzed. Meta-analysis showed that steroid injection had no significant effect on either deep (risk ratio = 1.87; 95% CI 0.80-4.35; P = 0.15) or superficial infection rates (risk ratio = 1.75; 95% CI 0.76-4.04; P = 0.19) of subsequent arthroplasty. Further large cohort studies would be of value in further examining whether steroid injections close to the time of arthroplasty are safe.

Does previous intra-articular steroid injection increase the risk of joint infection following total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Joint infection might be one of the rare but serious complications following a total knee or hip arthroplasty (TKA, THA). A previous intra-articular steroid injection was considered as a risk factor. The purpose of present study was to access the effects of ipsilateral intra-articular steroid injection followed by TKA or THA on the incidence of infections later.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Clinical studies reporting infection in THA or TKA after previous injection of intra-articular steroid were identified from the online database of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and additional manual searches until July 2013. The pooled effects were measured by risk difference (RD), together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 11 related studies met our inclusion criteria. The final meta-analysis investigated 6 clinical studies designed as retrospectively created cohort studies with control groups, involving 1474 participants reporting 14 deep infections and 72 superficial infections. Compared with the control group, there was no significantly increased rate of infection among the participant with steroid injection prior to THA or TKA, with corresponding RD (95% CIs) of 0.01 (-0.01, 0.02) for deep infection, 0.01 (-0.02, 0.03) for superficial infection, and 0.02 (-0.02, 0.07) for total infection. The data from 3 prospective studies without control groups and 2 case-control studies were consistent with the results of our meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

No increased risk of infection among patients who received steroid injections prior to the surgery was identified from the present evidence. A multicenter prospective study with more defined variables is needed further investigate this issue.

Identification and preoperative optimization of risk factors to prevent periprosthetic joint infection

Despite significant improvements over the past several decades in diagnosis, treatment and prevention of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), it still remains a major challenge following total joint arthroplasty. Given the devastating nature and accelerated incidence of PJI, prevention is the most important strategy to deal with this challenging problem and should start from identifying risk factors. Understanding and well-organized optimization of these risk factors in individuals before elective arthroplasty are essential to the ultimate success in reducing the incidence of PJI. Even though some risk factors such as demographic characteristics are seldom changeable, they allow more accurate expectation regarding individual risks of PJI and thus, make proper counseling for shared preoperative decision-making possible. Others that increase the risk of PJI, but are potentially modifiable should be optimized prior to elective arthroplasty. Although remarkable advances have been achieved in past decades, many questions regarding standardized practice to prevent this catastrophic complication remain unanswered. The current study provide a comprehensive knowledge regarding risk factors based on general principles to control surgical site infection by the review of current literature and also share own practice at our institution to provide practical and better understandings.

Systematic review: the safety of intra-articular corticosteroid injection prior to total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Up to 30% of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have received intra-articular corticosteroid injections prior to surgery. Debate exists as to whether such injections increase the rate of post-operative infection. Given that deep infection is a disastrous complication, a systematic review of the literature was undertaken to evaluate the safety of intra-articular corticosteroid injections given prior to TKA. Other features of corticosteroid use are also discussed including mechanism of action and optimal dosage.

METHODS

Using PRISMA guidelines, EMBASE, CINAHL and MEDLINE databases were searched using the search terms 'total knee arthroplasty', 'replacement', 'corticosteroid', 'steroid', 'infection', 'safety', and relevant articles critically appraised. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess for bias.

RESULTS

No level one or two studies were available for review. Two retrospective case control studies and two cohort studies (level three evidence) which specifically evaluated the risk of infected TKA in association with pre-operative steroid injection were reviewed: three showed that prior steroid injection was not associated with increased infection rates; one article showed that prior steroid injection was associated with a significantly increased risk of deep infection post-TKA.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians commonly administer steroid injections to patients who are candidates for TKA but may be unaware of the potential long term complications. The included studies were underpowered and at risk of selection bias and only one study demonstrated an increased risk of infection post-operatively. We recommend that further research is required to evaluate the safety of steroid injection prior to TKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Is the infection rate in primary THA increased after steroid injection?

BACKGROUND

Injection of the hip is performed for diagnostic and therapeutic reasons. Articular cartilage deterioration and increased risk of prosthetic infection have been reported with steroid injections. However, the literature contains contradictory reports on an increased risk of infection after a subsequent THA.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked whether intraarticular steroid injection increased the rate of infection of a subsequent THA.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed records of 175 patients in whom intraarticular steroid injections were given under strictly aseptic conditions using a lateral approach within 1 year before THA. These patients were matched with others from our database who had not received an injection for comorbidities, and for American Society of Anesthesiologists score, age, BMI, sex, type of implant, and year of THA.

RESULTS

We found no differences in the rate of deep or superficial infection between the two groups. One patient in the injected group and one in the control group had a late chronic infection. In three patients in the injected group and one in the control group, one of the intraoperative cultures was positive. Five patients in the injected group and seven in the control group had superficial infections develop. In seven patients in the injected group and five in the control group, there was prolonged wound drainage (> 5 days). None of these patients had a deep wound infection at latest followup.

CONCLUSIONS

When used in strictly aseptic conditions, intraarticular steroid injection of the hip did not increase the risk of infection in patients subsequently undergoing THA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Adverse events from diagnostic and therapeutic joint injections: a literature review

This review article classifies the various adverse reactions arising from intra-articular injections by severity, diagnostic category, and whether they are due to corticosteroid, local anesthetic or viscosupplementation injections. Life-threatening and serious adverse events from intra-articular injections are rare and range from local complications to systemic afflictions. Measures to reduce the likelihood of an adverse event occurring are outlined and patients with significant features in their clinical histories, predisposing them to adverse events, are highlighted.

Repeat 2-stage revision for recurrent infection of total hip arthroplasty

Eleven patients who developed reinfection after 2-stage revision for infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) were treated with a repeat 2-stage rerevision. Of the 11 rerevisions, 4 were successful, with no recurrent infection at mean follow-up of 44 months. Reinfection occurred in 7 patients of whom 6 involved either a significantly compromised host or poor local wound status. Clinical symptoms of infection were controlled in 4 of the 7 reinfected cases with antibiotic therapy in 2, irrigation and debridement in 1, and a third 2-stage revision THA in 1. Repeat 2-stage treatment of infected THA is associated with a high failure rate. However, successful results can be achieved particularly if the host is not immunocompromised and healthy soft tissue coverage is present.

Intraarticular cortisone injection for osteoarthritis of the hip. Is it effective? Is it safe?

Osteoarthritis of the hip is a significant source of morbidity in the elderly. Treatment guidelines are available for the management of hip osteoarthritis, but these do not address the application of intraarticular corticosteroid injection. The intraarticular injection of corticosteroid is used in the management of other large joint osteoarthritic diseases and is well studied in the knee, however, this data cannot be used to make sound clinical decisions regarding its use for hip osteoarthritis. There are also concerns regarding the safety of this modality. Review of the published literature reveals that there are eight trials examining the efficacy of intraarticular corticosteroid injection for hip osteoarthritis and of these only four are randomized controlled trials. In general, the available literature demonstrates a short-term reduction of pain with corticosteroid injection and is indicated for patients refractory to non-pharmacologic or analgesic and NSAID therapy. The use of radiologic-guidance is recommended and, with proper sterile technique, the risk of adverse outcomes is very low. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to further examine the efficacy and safety of intraarticular corticosteroid injection for hip osteoarthritis.

Does intraarticular steroid infiltration increase the rate of infection in subsequent total knee replacements?

Steroid injection into the arthritic joint is a well-known treatment. Its efficacy is well documented. An increase in the incidence of infection secondary to steroid injection has been reported in recent literature. Based on the current literature we carried out a retrospective study to evaluate the incidence of infection in primary total knee arthroplasty as a result of previous steroid infiltration into the knee joint. In our study, 440 patients underwent total knee replacement between 1997 and 2005. Only 90 patients had intraarticular steroid injection prior to surgery, of which 45 patients had injection within 1 year prior to surgery. A matched cohort of 180 patients who had total knee replacement without steroid injection was used as control group to compare the infection rate. All patients had at least 1 year follow up. Two cases of superficial infection were noted in the study group and five cases of superficial infection in the control group. No cases of deep infection were noted in either group. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in incidence of infection in either group (P value 1.0). This study showed no increase in the incidence of infection in patients with total knee arthroplasty with prior steroid injection.

Peri-articular steroid injection improves the outcome after unicondylar knee replacement

We have performed a prospective double-blind, randomised controlled trial over two years to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an intra-operative peri-articular injection of triamcinolone acetonide in patients undergoing medial unicondylar knee replacement. We randomised 90 patients into two equal groups. The study group received an injection of triamcinolone acetonide, bupivacaine, and epinephrine into the peri-articular tissues at the end of the operation. The control group received the same injection mixture but without the addition of triamcinolone. The peri-operative analgesic regimen was standardised.

The study group reported a significant reduction in pain (p = 0.014 at 12 hours, p = 0.031 at 18 hours and p = 0.031 at 24 hours) and had a better range of movement (p = 0.023 at three months). There was no significant difference in the rate of infection and no incidence of tendon rupture in either group.

The addition of corticosteroid to the peri-articular injection after unicondylar knee replacement had both immediate and short-term benefits in terms of relief from pain, and rehabilitation with no increased risk of infection.

Outcome following deep wound contamination in cemented arthroplasty

Infection remains a devastating complication of joint replacement surgery causing a significant burden to both patient and surgeon. However, despite exhaustive prophylactic measures, intraoperative contamination still occurs during cemented arthroplasty with current infection rates of 1-2%. A study was undertaken to determine the incidence of perioperative contamination in cemented arthroplasty patients, to identify contaminating organisms, to identify contaminated regions within the operative wound, to identify factors associated with increased contamination, and finally to assess the medium-term clinical outcome in patients with confirmed intraoperative wound contamination. Eighty consecutive patients undergoing hip and knee cemented arthroplasty were prospectively enrolled over a 6-month period. All scrubbed personnel wore total body exhaust isolation suits and procedures were carried out in ultra-clean air theatres. Of 441 samples, contamination was identified at 21 sites (4.8%) representing a cohort of 18 patients (22.5%). Longer duration of surgery predisposed to higher contamination rates while lower contamination rates were significantly related to fewer gowned personnel within the ultra-clean system, and fewer total personnel in theatre during the procedure. None of the patients developed clinical evidence of deep prosthetic infection at follow-up. We noted a high incidence of intraoperative contamination despite standard prophylaxis. However, this was not reflected by a similar rate of postoperative infection. This may be due to a small bacterial inoculum in each case or may be due to the therapeutic effect of perioperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis.

Total hip replacement after intra-articular injection of local anaesthetic and steroid

Intra-articular injections of steroid into the hip are used for a variety of reasons in current orthopaedic practice. Recently their safety prior to ipsilateral total hip replacement has been called into question owing to concerns about deep joint infection.

We undertook a retrospective analysis of all patients who had undergone local anaesthetic and steroid injections followed by ipsilateral total hip replacement over a five-year period. Members of the surgical team, using a lateral approach to the hip, performed all the injections in the operating theatre using a strict aseptic technique. The mean time between injection and total hip replacement was 18 months (4 to 50). The mean follow-up after hip replacement was 25.8 months (9 to 78), during which time no case of deep joint sepsis was found.

In our series, ipsilateral local anaesthetic and steroid injections have not conferred an increased risk of infection in total hip replacement. We believe that the practice of intra-articular local anaesthetic and steroid injections to the hip followed by total hip replacement is safer than previously reported.

The safety of hip injection with corticosteroid in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoarthritis

INTRODUCTION

Injection of steroid and local anaesthetic into hip and knee joints has been a recommended treatment for osteoarthritic pain for decades. There have been recent studies showing a higher incidence of infection leading to early revision of joint prostheses in patients who have had corticosteroid injections prior to joint replacement surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to determine if there is any risk of infection in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) after a hip joint injection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective search was conducted using the hospital computer database to identify patients who underwent hip injection and subsequent THA between 2000 and 2004. The study included a review all case notes to specifically identify prosthetic infection or early joint replacement surgery.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-eight patients had hip joint injections and subsequently underwent successful total hip replacement. In this study there was no evidence of associated risk of prosthetic infection or early revision of total hip arthroplasty after hip joint injection with corticosteroids (average time of follow-up 3.2 years).

CONCLUSIONS

Hip injection is safe provided a strict aseptic protocol is maintained. The time period of pain relief with hip injection is limited (average 2 months). For diagnostic purposes injections with local anaesthetic only is recommended. A large randomised control study would probably further substantiate these findings.

Recent intraarticular steroid injection may increase infection rates in primary THA

We retrospectively determined the rate of therapeutic intraarticular steroid injection within 1 year before total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis and whether the injection of the steroid increased the risk of infection. In a retrospective matched cohort study, 224 primary THAs (217 patients) implanted within 1 year of intraarticular steroid injection (Group 1) were compared with 224 primary THAs (220 patients) in patients who had not received an injection (Group 2). The mean time between injection and THA was 112 days (SD, 81 days). In Group 1, there were three deep and 11 superficial infections compared with one deep and eight superficial infections in Group 2. The hazard ratios of deep and superficial infections were 3 (95% CI, 0.3, 29.8) and 1.5 (95% CI, 0.6, 3.6), respectively. Intraarticular steroid injection within 1 year of THA did not affect postoperative rates of infection. However, the mean time from steroid injection to THA was 44 days (SD, 23 days) in the few patients who had deep infection develop. While not statistically significant, this raises a concern of increased risk of deep infection when receiving a steroid injection within 6 weeks of THA. Caution should be used before giving an intraarticular steroid injection within 2 months before THA.

Infection in primary hip arthroplasty after previous steroid infiltration

Steroid Infiltration into arthritic joints is a common means of treating pain. It is also sometimes done to differentiate pain in the hip from that in the low back or knee. We performed a retrospective review of the notes of all patients who had undergone hip replacements in Wrightington Hospital under the care of the senior author (V.R.) from 1997 to 2004. We identified all patients who had at least 1 year follow up after the procedure. The infection rates in the patients who had received an injection of steroid into the joint prior to hip replacement and in a matched cohort who had received no such intervention were compared. In the injected group there was no incidence of infection during the period of follow up. There was one case of infection in a patient who had not had an injection prior to the arthroplasty. There was also a case of superficial infection in a patient who had no steroid infiltration prior to surgery, which responded to antibiotics. Steroid injections are a valuable adjunct in the management of patients with arthritic joints. This review clearly identifies no increased risk of infection in patients who had received the injection prior to the operation.

Effect of intra-articular steroids on deep infections following total knee arthroplasty

Intra-articular steroids have been commonly used for the treatment of arthritis. The aim of our study was to discover any relation between deep infections following total knee arthroplasty and intra-articular steroid use before the arthroplasty. We undertook a retrospective matched cohort study. In the study group there were 32 patients with confirmed deep infection following total knee replacement. The control group consisted of 32 patients with no evidence of infection in the knee. There was no significant difference between the numbers of patients who received intra-articular steroid injection between the groups (P=1). We believe that infection following total knee replacement is due to multiple factors and that the use of intra-articular steroids does not alter the incidence of deep infections following total knee arthroplasty.

Infection in knee replacements after previous injection of intra-articular steroid

We reviewed 231 patients who had undergone total knee replacement with an AGC (Biomet) implant over a period of 2.5 years. After applying exclusion criteria and with some loss to follow-up, there were 144 patients available for study. These were divided into two groups; those who had received intra-articular steroid in the 11 months before surgery and those who had not.

There were three deep infections, all of which occurred in patients who had received a steroid injection. The incidence of superficial infection was not significantly different in the two groups. Five patients had undergone investigation for suspected deep infection because of persistent swelling or pain and all of these had received an intra-articular injection pre-operatively. We conclude that the decision to administer intra-articular steroids to a patient who may be a candidate for total knee replacement should not be taken lightly because of a risk of post-operative deep infection.