Use of Povidone-Iodine Irrigation Prior to Wound Closure in Primary Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 11,738 Cases Background: Povidone-iodine (PI) irrigation is often used prior to wound closure in total joint arthroplasty, but there are limited reports evaluating its efficacy in decreasing joint infections. The goal of this study was to compare the rate of any reoperation for infection (both superficial and deep) in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) among patients who did and did not receive PI irrigation prior to wound closure. Methods: Using our institution’s total joint registry, we identified 5,534 primary THA and 6,204 primary TKA procedures performed from 2013 to 2017. Cases were grouped on the basis of whether or not the wound was irrigated with 1 L of 0.25% PI prior to closure. PI irrigation was used in 1,322 (24%) of the THA cases and in 2,410 (39%) of the TKA cases. The rates of reoperation for infection at 3 months and 1 year were compared between the 2 groups. The same comparisons were then performed using propensity scores to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Results: The rate of reoperation for infection as assessed at 3 months following THA was similar between those who received dilute PI irrigation (0.9%) and who did not (0.7%) (p = 0.7). At 1 year, the rate of reoperation for infection was similar between those who received dilute PI irrigation (0.7%) and those who did not (0.9%) (p = 0.6). After using the propensity score, there was no difference between the groups in the risk of septic reoperations. For TKA, the rate of reoperation as assessed at 3 months was similar between those who received dilute PI irrigation (0.8%) and those who did not (0.3%) (p = 0.06). At 1 year, there was a greater rate of reoperations for infection among those who received dilute PI irrigation (1.2%) compared with those who did not (0.6%) (p = 0.03). However, there was no difference in the risk of septic reoperations between the groups after using the propensity score. Conclusions: Despite enthusiasm for and progressive adoption of the use of dilute PI irrigation at our institution, there was not a significant reduction in the risk of reoperation for infection as assessed at 3 months and 1 year following primary THA and TKA. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Povidone-Iodine Wound Lavage to Prevent Infection After Revision Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 2,884 Cases Background: Postoperative infection remains a major challenge in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Wound irrigation with dilute povidone-iodine (PI) solution has emerged as a simple, inexpensive, and potentially successful means of reducing postoperative infections. The aim of this study was to assess its effectiveness in reducing infection following revision THA and TKA in, to our knowledge, the largest revision cohort to date. Methods: Using our institution’s total joint registry, we identified 1,402 revision THAs and 1,482 revision TKAs performed during the study period (2013, when the PI irrigation protocol was first implemented, to 2017). The PI lavage protocol was employed in 27% of the revision THA cases and 34% of the revision TKA cases; in the remaining cases, the protocol was not used. Demographics, comorbid conditions, underlying surgical diagnoses, and whether the revision was for a septic or an aseptic etiology were compared between the groups (use or no use of PI irrigation). Any reoperation due to infection, as assessed at 3 and 12 months following revision arthroplasty, was compared between the groups and propensity scores were calculated to account for differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. Results: After adjusting for baseline differences between the groups using the propensity-score weighted models, we found no significant difference in the rate of reoperation for infection at 3 months (p = 0.58 for revision THA, and p = 0.06 for revision TKA) and at 12 months (p = 0.78 for revision THA, and p = 0.06 for revision TKA). Nonetheless, the hazard ratios from the propensity-score model trended higher for patients who received PI lavage: 1.6 and 1.3 for revision THA at 3 and 12 months, respectively, and 2.9 at both 3 and 12 months for revision TKA. Conclusions: PI wound lavage demonstrated no benefit in reducing any reoperation for infection following revision THA and TKA. Moreover, the trend toward higher rates for reoperation for infection among patients who received PI irrigation merit further consideration. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.