Units

PubMed

Doi

---

Citation

Type

Journal

Publication Date

Issn Electronic

Pages

Brief description/objective

BACKGROUND
The outcome of revision surgery in arthroplasty is based on a precise diagnosis. In addition, the treatment varies based on whether the prosthetic failure is caused by aseptic or septic loosening. Algorithms can help to identify periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) and standardize diagnostic steps, however, algorithms tend to oversimplify the treatment of complex cases. We conducted a process analysis during the implementation of a PJI algorithm to determine problems and deviations associated with the implementation of this algorithm.

PATIENTS AND METHODS
Fifty patients who were treated after implementing a standardized algorithm were monitored retrospectively. Their treatment plans and diagnostic cascades were analyzed for deviations from the implemented algorithm. Each diagnostic procedure was recorded, compared with the algorithm, and evaluated statistically.

RESULTS
We detected 52 deviations while treating 50 patients. In 25 cases, no discrepancy was observed. Synovial fluid aspiration was not performed in 31.8% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.1%-45.6%), while white blood cell counts (WBCs) and neutrophil differentiation were assessed in 54.5% of patients (95% CI, 39.8%-69.3%). We also observed that the prolonged incubation of cultures was not requested in 13.6% of patients (95% CI, 3.5%-23.8%). In seven of 13 cases (63.6%; 95% CI, 35.2%-92.1%), arthroscopic biopsy was performed; 6 arthroscopies were performed in discordance with the algorithm (12%; 95% CI, 3%-21%).

CONCLUSION
Self-critical analysis of diagnostic processes and monitoring of deviations using algorithms are important and could increase the quality of treatment by revealing recurring faults.