Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorLangvatn, Håkon
dc.contributor.authorSchrama, Johannes Cornelis
dc.contributor.authorCao, Guangyu
dc.contributor.authorHallan, Geir
dc.contributor.authorFurnes, Ove
dc.contributor.authorLingass, Egil
dc.contributor.authorWalenkamp, Geert
dc.contributor.authorEngesæter, Lars Birger
dc.contributor.authorDale, Håvard
dc.date.accessioned2021-04-20T12:09:54Z
dc.date.available2021-04-20T12:09:54Z
dc.date.created2020-04-14T09:53:23Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.issn0195-6701
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2738675
dc.description.abstractBackground 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 (lvUDVF) 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.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleOperating room ventilation and the risk of revision due to infection after total hip arthroplasty: assessment of validated data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Registeren_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2020 The Authorsen_US
cristin.ispublishedfalse
cristin.fulltextpostprint
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.04.010
dc.identifier.cristin1806037
dc.source.journalJournal of Hospital Infectionen_US
dc.source.pagenumber216-224en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Hospital Infection. 2020, 105 (2), 216-224en_US
dc.source.volume105en_US
dc.source.issue2en_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal