<- Back to digest

JOA - 2026-03-20 - Journal Article

Asymptomatic Bacteriuria and Periprosthetic Joint Infection Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Roy V, Van Brenk A, Benaroch LR, Alatassi R, Howard JL, Vasarhelyi EM, Lanting BA

meta-analysisLOE IIn = 16 studies (14 cohorts + 2 RCTs), 49,627 jointsN/A

Topics

arthroplasty
PMID: 41865808DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2026.03.046View on PubMed ->

Key Takeaway

ASB carries a pooled OR of 2.41 for PJI across all arthroplasty types, but procedure-specific subgroup analyses were non-significant and antibiotic treatment of ASB conferred no protective benefit.

Summary Depth

Choose how much analysis to show on this article page.

Summary

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether ASB increases PJI risk across hip and knee arthroplasty using random-effects Mantel-Haenszel pooling with HKSJ adjustments across 16 studies. Pooled analysis showed OR 2.41 (95% CI 1.20–4.83, P=0.02) for PJI in ASB patients, but subgroup analyses by procedure type (TKA, THA, hemiarthroplasty) and follow-up duration were non-significant. Prophylactic antibiotic treatment of ASB did not reduce PJI risk in elective arthroplasty, and hip fracture hemiarthroplasty showed no increased PJI risk with ASB regardless of antibiotic use.

Key Limitation

Procedure-specific subgroup analyses were underpowered, meaning a clinically meaningful procedure-level risk cannot be excluded based on this data alone.

Original Abstract

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication of hip and knee arthroplasty. Although hematogenous seeding is a recognized cause, the contribution of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) remains uncertain. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate this association.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted according to predefined eligibility criteria. There were 16 studies (14 cohorts [n = 48,562 joints] and two randomized controlled trials [n = 1,065 joints] that met inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was PJI rates after hip and knee arthroplasties in patients who had ASB. The secondary outcomes were subgroup analyses by procedure type and culture isolates in urinary and intraoperative cultures. Random-effects meta-analyses used Mantel-Haenszel pooling with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustments.

RESULTS

The ASB cohort showed higher pooled odds of PJI (odds ratio 2.41, 95% confidence interval 1.20 to 4.83; P = 0.02), but subgroup analyses by follow-up and procedure type were not significant. Antibiotic treatment offered no benefit in elective arthroplasty, and ASB in hip fracture hemiarthroplasty showed no increased risk, with or without antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

The ASB cohort demonstrated a statistically significant, yet modest, increased odds of PJI limited to pooled undifferentiated, arthroplasty. In contrast, procedure- and time-specific analyses, while underpowered, showed no consistent signal to suggest an increased risk of PJI following hip or knee arthroplasty or fracture hemiarthroplasty. Consistent with this, prophylactic antibiotic treatment of ASB was not associated with a protective effect. Taken together, these findings do not support routine preoperative urinalysis to promote antimicrobial stewardship.