Orthopedic Infectious Diseases Online Library
Your search
Results 3 resources
-
It has been shown that the outcome of a DAIR (debridement, antimicrobial therapy, and implant retention) procedure depends on multiple factors (e.g. infection type, host factors, clinical presentation, condition of surrounding soft tissue, causing pathogen, surgical technique, antimicrobial therapy); therefore, adequate patient selection is key for DAIR success. In this position paper, we discuss the most relevant factors influencing the outcome and define indications, contraindications, and risk factors for a DAIR procedure based on the most robust and most recently published data. Furthermore, we discuss the surgical technique in combination with systemic antimicrobial therapy in patients undergoing a DAIR procedure. This position paper may help reduce reinfection rates as well as the physical, psychological, and economic burden associated with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We believe that a reasonable outcome can be achieved with careful patient selection, a dedicated multidisciplinary team, and an appropriate surgical technique and antimicrobial therapy.
-
Aims: It remains unclear if postoperative antibiotic (AB) treatment is advantageous in presumed aseptic revision arthroplasties of the hip (rTHA) and knee (rTKA) with unexpected positive intraoperative cultures (UPIC). The aim of this study is to evaluate if there is a difference in the re-revision rate in patients with UPIC when treated with postoperative AB or when postoperative AB is withheld. Methods: In this retrospective matched cohort study we compared the re-revision rates in rTHA and rTKA with (AB group: 45 rTHA, 25 rTKA) and without (non-AB group: 45 rTHA, 25 rTKA) AB treatment in patients with UPIC. Baseline covariates for matching were the microorganism (likely or not likely to be a contaminant), patient demographics, joint, revision type, surgical site infection score, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, serum C-reactive protein (CRP). Results: After a median follow-up of 4.1 (inter-quartile range, IQR: 2.9–5.5) years after rTHA and rTKA, the re-revision rate between the AB group and the non-AB group was 14.3 % versus 15.7 % (P=0.81). In the AB group, 4.3 % (3/70) of patients underwent revision due to septic complications compared to 5.7 % (4/70) in the non-AB group (P=0.69). None of the patients were diagnosed with a confirmed periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) according to the PJI diagnostic criteria of European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS). In 22/70 (31.4 %) of the patients in the AB group and in 15/70 (21.4 %) of the patients in the non-AB group, a diagnosis of “infection likely” was made according to the EBJIS criteria (P=0.18). All UPICs with low virulent microorganisms were considered to be contamination (coagulase-negative Staphylococci; Corynebacterium; anaerobic Gram-positive bacilli and cocci, e.g., Finegoldia magna, Cutibacterium acnes). Conclusion: Postoperative AB treatment did not result in a decreased re-revision rate in patients with UPIC in presumed aseptic rTHA and rTKA. Patients diagnosed with pathogens classified as a likely contaminant can be safely ignored.
-
Introduction There have been conflicting reports on the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with the use of alternative antibiotics to cefazolin following arthroplasty. We leveraged recent data from a nationally representative multi-payer dataset to investigate this question. Methods We queried a healthcare dataset from 2016 to 2022 to identify primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and International Classification of Disease-Procedure Coding System (ICD-PCS) codes (27130, 0SR90xx, 0SRB0xx) with a corresponding osteoarthritis diagnosis (International Classification of Disease-Clinical Modification (ICD-CM): M16). Patient demographics, characteristics, and outcomes were extracted from existing dataset variables. The PJIs were defined using ICD-10 diagnosis codes from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ procedure-specific complication measure within 90 days of surgery. We compared PJI between patients receiving cefazolin antibiotic prophylaxis and patients who received an alternative antibiotic or cefazolin plus another antibiotic. The association between cefazolin use and PJI was evaluated using multinomial logistic regression. This study included 289,369 primary THA patients from 2016 to 2022. There were 25,164 patients (8.7%) who received a non-cefazolin antibiotic, 200,367 (69.2%) received cefazolin only, and 63,838 (22.1%) received cefazolin plus an alternative antibiotic. Results In univariate analysis, there was a significant difference in the rate of 90-day PJI between the non-cefazolin group, cefazolin only, and cefazolin plus other antibiotic group (0.9, 0.5, and 0.5%, respectively, P < 0.001). In a logistic regression analysis that adjusted for age, sex, payer, race, ethnicity, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, the use of cefazolin only and cefazolin plus other antibiotic, were associated with reduced risk of 90-day PJI [OR (odds ratio) 0.62, 95% CI (confidence interval) (0.53 to 0.72), P < 0.001] and [OR 0.64, 95% CI (0.54 to 0.76), P < 0.001]. Conclusions In this nationally representative multi-payer study using recent data, patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis with cefazolin had lower 90-day rates of PJI compared to those receiving alternative antibiotics during primary total hip arthroplasty.