There are many international meetings and consensus about the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. However, there aren´t consensus about the most appropriate test to identify the prophylactically microorganisms responsible of infection. This paper is a retrospective study of 1.022 patients with 1.045 total hip replacements between 2009-2013. We analyzed the results of intraoperative culture samples, identified the microorganisms and the patients with clinical infection. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the test. The patients with infectious were identified and classified according to criteria Tsukayama and treatment performed. We conclude that intraoperative culture samples in primary hip arthroplasty to try to advance the diagnosis of periprosthetic infection are an ineffective and inefficient practice and we have to stop doing it.

There are many international meetings and consensus about the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. However, there aren´t consensus about the most appropriate test to identify the prophylactically microorganisms responsible of infection. This paper is a retrospective study of 1.022 patients with 1.045 total hip replacements between 2009-2013. We analyzed the results of intraoperative culture samples, identified the microorganisms and the patients with clinical infection. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the test. The patients with infectious were identified and classified according to criteria Tsukayama and treatment performed. We conclude that intraoperative culture samples in primary hip arthroplasty to try to advance the diagnosis of periprosthetic infection are an ineffective and inefficient practice and we have to stop doing it.