{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,28]],"date-time":"2026-07-28T18:48:58Z","timestamp":1785264538810,"version":"3.55.0"},"reference-count":36,"publisher":"Cambridge University Press (CUP)","issue":"2","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2016,11,11]],"date-time":"2016-11-11T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1478822400000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/terms"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol."],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017,2]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec id=\"S0899823X16002567_abs1\" sec-type=\"general\"><jats:title>BACKGROUND<\/jats:title><jats:p>Hip and knee arthroplasty infections are associated with considerable healthcare costs. The merits of reducing the postoperative surveillance period from 1 year to 90 days have been debated.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec id=\"S0899823X16002567_abs2\" sec-type=\"objectives\"><jats:title>OBJECTIVES<\/jats:title><jats:p>To report the first pan-Canadian hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates and to describe the implications of a shorter (90-day) postoperative surveillance period.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec id=\"S0899823X16002567_abs3\" sec-type=\"methods\"><jats:title>METHODS<\/jats:title><jats:p>Prospective surveillance for infection following hip and knee arthroplasty was conducted by hospitals participating in the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program (CNISP) using standard surveillance definitions.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec id=\"S0899823X16002567_abs4\" sec-type=\"results\"><jats:title>RESULTS<\/jats:title><jats:p>Overall hip and knee PJI rates were 1.64 and 1.52 per 100 procedures, respectively. Deep incisional and organ-space hip and knee PJI rates were 0.96 and 0.71, respectively. In total, 93% of hip PJIs and 92% of knee PJIs were identified within 90 days, with a median time to detection of 21 days. However, 11%\u201316% of deep incisional and organ-space infections were not detected within 90 days. This rate was reduced to 3%\u20134% at 180 days post procedure. Anaerobic and polymicrobial infections had the shortest median time from procedure to detection (17 and 18 days, respectively) compared with infections due to other microorganisms, including <jats:italic>Staphylococcus aureus<\/jats:italic>.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec id=\"S0899823X16002567_abs5\" sec-type=\"conclusions\"><jats:title>CONCLUSIONS<\/jats:title><jats:p>PJI rates were similar to those reported elsewhere, although differences in national surveillance systems limit direct comparisons. Our results suggest that a postoperative surveillance period of 90 days will detect the majority of PJIs; however, up to 16% of deep incisional and organ-space infections may be missed. Extending the surveillance period to 180 days could allow for a better estimate of disease burden.<\/jats:p><jats:p><jats:italic>Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol<\/jats:italic> 2017;38:147\u2013153<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1017\/ice.2016.256","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2016,11,11]],"date-time":"2016-11-11T11:24:25Z","timestamp":1478863465000},"page":"147-153","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":23,"title":["Periprosthetic Infection following Primary Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: The Impact of Limiting the Postoperative Surveillance Period"],"prefix":"10.1017","volume":"38","author":[{"given":"Virginia R.","family":"Roth","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Robyn","family":"Mitchell","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Julie","family":"Vachon","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"St\u00e9phanie","family":"Alexandre","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Kanchana","family":"Amaratunga","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Stephanie","family":"Smith","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Mary","family":"Vearncombe","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Ian","family":"Davis","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Dominik","family":"Mertz","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Elizabeth","family":"Henderson","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Michael","family":"John","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Lynn","family":"Johnston","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Camille","family":"Lemieux","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Linda","family":"Pelude","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Denise","family":"Gravel","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"name":"the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"56","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2016,11,11]]},"reference":[{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajic.2009.06.010"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref28","unstructured":"Annual Epidemiological Report: Antimicrobial Resistance and Healthcare-associated Infections. 2014. European Center for Disease Prevention and Control website. http:\/\/ecdc.europa.eu\/en\/publications\/Publications\/antimicrobial-resistance-annual-epidemiological-report.pdf. Published April 2015. Accessed May 16, 2016."},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref19","article-title":"Post-discharge surveillance (PDS) for surgical site infections: a good method is more important than a long duration","volume":"20","author":"Koek","year":"2015","journal-title":"Euro Surveill"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1093\/cid\/cit516"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jhin.2004.10.019"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/acr.22523"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1067\/mic.2001.114625"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref18","unstructured":"Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)\/National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). Surgical site infection (SSI) event. Procedure-associated module SSI. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. http:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/nhsn\/PDFs\/pscManual\/9pscSSIcurrent.pdf. Published January 2016. Accessed May 16, 2016."},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3201\/eid0702.010230"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1086\/670626"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref25","first-page":"13","article-title":"Evaluation of the representativeness of the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program","volume":"30","author":"Rutledge-Taylor","year":"2015","journal-title":"Can J Infect Control"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1093\/oxfordjournals.aje.a113990"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0002-9343(91)90361-Z"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref34","unstructured":"Surveillance of Surgical Site Infections in NHS Hospitals in England 2014\/15. Public Health England website. https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/publications\/surgical-site-infections-ssi-surveillance-nhs-hospitals-in-england. Published December 2015. Accessed May 19, 2016."},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref36","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.arth.2013.09.017"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref30","unstructured":"National and State Healthcare Associated Infections (HAI) Progress Report. (2012 data). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. http:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/HAI\/pdfs\/progress-report\/hai-progress-report-2014.pdf. Published March 2014. Accessed May 16, 2016."},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2807\/1560-7917.ES2015.20.13.21081"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref31","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajic.2015.06.011"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1086\/502013"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref35","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1128\/AAC.06246-11"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1086\/501572"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1093\/jac\/dku247"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajic.2005.04.244"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1017\/ice.2015.148"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1086\/675837"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jhin.2013.09.016"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref13","first-page":"E051117.3","article-title":"Surveillance of surgical site infection in orthopaedic surgery is useful in tackling hospital-acquired infections in England","volume":"10","author":"Wilson","year":"2005","journal-title":"Euro Surveill"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2106\/JBJS.L.00789"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajic.2008.03.002"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s11999-009-1013-5"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jhin.2007.04.008"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.arth.2009.04.027"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1177\/230949900801600115"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref32","unstructured":"Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Meeting summary report. June 14\u201315, 2012, Atlanta, GA. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. http:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/hicpac\/pdf\/mm\/HICPAC-MEETING-MINUTES-JUNE-2012.pdf. Published 2012. Accessed May 16, 2016."},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref33","first-page":"43","article-title":"Authors response: Is a reduced duration of post-discharge surgical site infection surveillance really in our best interests?","volume":"20","author":"Koek","year":"2015","journal-title":"Euro Surveill"},{"key":"S0899823X16002567_ref15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1001\/archsurg.1983.01390030035006"}],"container-title":["Infection Control &amp; Hospital Epidemiology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/services\/aop-cambridge-core\/content\/view\/S0899823X16002567","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2019,4,18]],"date-time":"2019-04-18T04:29:44Z","timestamp":1555561784000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/product\/identifier\/S0899823X16002567\/type\/journal_article"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2016,11,11]]},"references-count":36,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017,2]]}},"alternative-id":["S0899823X16002567"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/ice.2016.256","relation":{},"ISSN":["0899-823X","1559-6834"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0899-823X","type":"print"},{"value":"1559-6834","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2016,11,11]]}}}