Hip and Knee Section, Prevention, Antimicrobials (Systemic): Proceedings of International Consensus on Orthopedic Infections

Preventing Orthopedic Infections

The prevention of orthopedic infections is of critical importance to improve patient outcomes and reduce health care costs. Preventative strategies can be employed preoperatively, including mitigation of medical risk factors, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus decolonization, appropriate skin preparation, and optimizing perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis; intraoperatively, including utilizing irrigation, topical antibiotics, infection control measures, and timely debridement/optimal surgical techniques; and postoperatively, including consideration of antibiotic duration after primary arthroplasty and reimplantation. This article provides an evidence-based discussion of these strategies while also highlighting areas where ongoing research may be beneficial.

The use of perioperative cephalosporin prophylaxis in patients who have a pre-existing penicillin allergy

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown an association between a reported penicillin allergy and an increased risk of surgical site infection. The risk is due to avoidance of cephalosporins and to the use of alternative classes of antibiotics in surgical prophylaxis. The aim of this study was to examine the safety of using cephalosporins in patients with a penicillin allergy label.

METHODS

Patients with a primary or revision hip or knee arthroplasty in a tertiary care hospital between March 2020 and February 2023 were identified (n = 14,939). Information on prophylactic antibiotics, pre-existing antibiotic allergy labels before the operation, and all recorded new antibiotic allergy labels within 2 weeks after the operation was gathered. The prophylactic antibiotic use in patients with and without a penicillin allergy label was compared. In addition, all new antibiotic allergy labels recorded after the operation were verified from the electronic health records.

RESULTS

A total of 1,435 (9.6%) patients had a previous penicillin allergy label. The majority of patients (14,838 of 14,939; 99.3%) received cephalosporin prophylaxis, as did most of the patients with a label of penicillin allergy (1,395 of 1,435; 97.2%). Six perioperative allergic reactions were recorded; none of these were anaphylactic reactions. In 5 cases, the allergic reaction occurred in patients receiving cefuroxime, none of whom had a previous penicillin allergy.

CONCLUSION

This study found cephalosporin antibiotic prophylaxis to be safe in patients with a pre-existing penicillin allergy label.

[Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in obesity]

BACKGROUND

In terms of perioperative infections, arthroplasty for obese patients represents a high-risk procedure. Correct antibiotic prophylaxis is a central pillar of infection prophylaxis. Studies showed increased infection rates if an antibiotic other than cefazolin was administered for prophylaxis. In patients with anamnestic penicillin allergy, an existing allergy is extremely rare, and the presence of cross-allergies to cephalosporins is similarly rare. Consequently, every effort should be made to administer a first- or second generation cephalosporin such as cefazolin.

DOSAGE

Whether the dosage of antibiotic prophylaxis should be adjusted to the body weight remains unclear due to the limited data available: case series showed increased infection rates when cefazolin was underdosed and recommended increasing the dose to 3 g if the body weight exceeds 120 kg. However, no studies with a higher level of evidence exist. Published studies on the effective antibiotic levels in the tissue remain contradictory with regard to possible weight-dependent dose adjustments. Similarly, there is insufficient data on whether local intraoperative antibiotic prophylaxis may be useful in obese patients. By contrast, there is no evidence for a positive benefit of double prophylaxis with two different antibiotics or prolonged postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in obesity.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the data on antibiotic prophylaxis is generally insufficient, especially when focussing on possible dose adjustments in obesity. The well-timed administration of a cephalosporin such as cefazolin represents the golden standard in orthopedics and trauma surgery. A possible dose adjustment to 3 g for a body weight over 120 kg appears reasonable considering the low costs and the broad therapeutic window and is therefore recommended in the current AWMF S3 guideline.

Impact of Extended Prophylactic Antibiotics on Risk of Prosthetic Joint Infection in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Matched Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Extended oral prophylactic antibiotics have been increasingly used in arthroplasty with the goal of reducing the risk of prosthetic joint infection (PJI). While a reduction in the rate of PJI has been noted with extended oral antibiotic regimens in high-risk patients, no large database study has assessed infection risk after primary total hip arthroplasty among well-balanced cohorts receiving and not receiving postoperative extended oral antibiotics.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a national database, TriNetX, to identify patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty. This cohort was stratified by oral antibiotic prescription within one day of procedure. A one-to-one propensity score matching based on age, sex, class of obesity, and medical comorbidities was conducted. Outcomes explored in this study were 90-day risk of PJI, superficial skin infection, deep skin infection, and all-cause revision.

RESULTS

90-day postoperative infection complications of PJI were higher in the group receiving antibiotics (hazard ratio: 1.83, P -value = 0.012). Other complications such as superficial skin infection, deep skin infection, and all-cause revision showed no statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSION

This database analysis of 5,476 patients demonstrated no decrease in complications of PJI, superficial or deep skin infection, or revision at 90 days. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of extended oral antibiotics.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Successful prophylactic measures for the eradication of Staphylococcus aureus infections in elective hip primary and revision arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Staphylococcus aureus stands as the predominant etiological agent in postoperative acute prosthetic joint infections (PJI), contributing to 35-50% of reported cases. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of dual prophylaxis incorporating cefuroxime and teicoplanin, in combination with nasal decolonization utilizing 70% alcohol, and oral and body lavage with chlorhexidine.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of electronic health records regarding primary and revision arthroplasties conducted at our institution from 2020 to 2021. Relevant variables linked to prosthetic joint infections (PJI) were documented until the latest follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 539 operations (447 primary arthroplasties and 92 revision arthroplasties) were performed on 519 patients. There were 11 cases of postoperative acute PJI, resulting in infection rates of 1.6% for primary arthroplasties and 4.3% for revision surgeries. Infections were more prevalent in male patients, individuals with an ASA classification>II, and those undergoing longer operations (>90min). S. aureus was not isolated in any of the cases.

CONCLUSION

The prophylactic measures implemented in our institution have exhibited a high efficacy in preventing postoperative acute PJI caused by S. aureus.

Successful prophylactic measures for the eradication of Staphylococcus aureus infections in elective hip primary and revision arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Staphylococcus aureus stands as the predominant etiological agent in postoperative acute prosthetic joint infections (PJI), contributing to 35-50% of reported cases. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of dual prophylaxis incorporating cefuroxime and teicoplanin, in combination with nasal decolonization utilizing 70% alcohol, and oral and body lavage with chlorhexidine.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of electronic health records regarding primary and revision arthroplasties conducted at our institution from 2020 to 2021. Relevant variables linked to prosthetic joint infections (PJI) were documented until the latest follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 539 operations (447 primary arthroplasties and 92 revision arthroplasties) were performed on 519 patients. There were 11 cases of postoperative acute PJI, resulting in infection rates of 1.6% for primary arthroplasties and 4.3% for revision surgeries. Infections were more prevalent in male patients, individuals with an ASA classification>II, and those undergoing longer operations (>90min). S. aureus was not isolated in any of the cases.

CONCLUSION

The prophylactic measures implemented in our institution have exhibited a high efficacy in preventing postoperative acute PJI caused by S. aureus.

Preventive strategies to reduce the rate of periprosthetic infections in total joint arthroplasty; a comprehensive review

The increasing frequency of total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasties (TKA) is marred by the rise in periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) and surgical site infections (SSIs), with PJIs incurring costs over $1.62 billion as of 2020 and individual case management averaging $90,000. SSIs additionally burden the U.S. healthcare economy with billions in expenses annually. PJI prevalence in primary THA and TKA ranges from 0.5% to 2.4%, spiking to 20% in revisions and representing 25% of TKA revision causes. Projections estimate up to 270,000 annual PJI cases by 2030. Often caused by gram-positive bacteria, particularly methicillin-resistant staphylococci, these infections demand preventive measures. This review dissects PJI prevention across preoperative, intraoperative, and perioperative phases, aligning with evidence-based CDC and WHO guidelines. Preoperative measures include managing diabetes, obesity, tobacco use, Staphylococcus aureus screening and nasal decolonization, nutritional optimization, and management of inflammatory arthropathies. Intraoperatively, antibiotic prophylaxis, skin preparation, operative room environmental controls, surgical technique precision, and irrigation options are scrutinized. Perioperative concerns focus on anticoagulation, blood management, and infection risk mitigation. Integrating these strategies promotes a patient-centric care model, aiming to reduce PJI incidence, improve patient outcomes, and increase care cost-effectiveness in joint arthroplasty.

Increasing Utilization of Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis Following Total Knee Arthroplasty From 2010 to 2022

BACKGROUND

Extended oral antibiotic (EOA) prophylaxis has been shown to reduce rates of periprosthetic joint infection in high-risk patients following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Although national societies' recommendations against their use and clinical efficacy remain controversial, the increase in the literature surrounding EOA prophylaxis suggests a potential change in practice patterns that may warrant the creation of national guidelines. The purpose of this study was to investigate the trends in the utilization of EOA prophylaxis following TKA from 2010 to 2022.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary or aseptic revision TKA between 2010 and 2022 were identified in a national administrative claims database. Temporal trends in EOA usage following primary or revision TKA were calculated, and secondary analysis examined rates of utilization across demographics, including patients considered at high risk for infection. In total, 1,258,759 primary and 91,530 aseptic revision TKA patients were included in this study.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2022, EOA prescriptions increased by 321 and 368% following primary and revision TKA, respectively. Rates of utilization among high-risk individuals were similar to those of the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of EOA prophylaxis after TKA has increased significantly since 2010. Given their increasing usage and variation in prescription patterns among patients at high risk of infection, guidelines surrounding their use are necessary to promote antibiotic stewardship while preventing rates of infection.

Driving Forces for Outpatient Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols: A Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To explore the recent developments and trends in the anesthetic and surgical practices for total hip and total knee arthroplasty and discuss the implications for further outpatient total joint arthroplasty procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

Between 2012 and 2017 there was an 18.9% increase in the annual primary total joint arthroplasty volume. Payments to physicians falling by 7.5% (14.9% when adjusted for inflations), whereas hospital reimbursements and charges increased by 0.3% and 18.6%, respectively. Total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty surgeries were removed from the Medicare Inpatient Only in January 2018 and January 2020, respectively leading to same-day TKA surgeries increases from 1.2% in January 2016 to 62.4% by December 2020 Same-day volumes for THA surgery increased from 2% in January 2016 to 54.5% by December 2020. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have revolutionized modern anesthesia and surgery practices. Centers for Medicare Services officially removed total joint arthroplasty from the inpatient only services list, opening a new door for improved cost savings to patients and the healthcare system alike. In the post-COVID healthcare system numerous factors have pushed increasing numbers of total joint arthroplasties into the outpatient, ambulatory surgery center setting. Improved anesthesia and surgical practices in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative settings have revolutionized pain control, blood loss, and ambulatory status, rendering costly hospital stays obsolete in many cases. As the population ages and more total joint procedures are performed, the door is opening for more orthopedic procedures to exit the inpatient only setting in favor of the ambulatory setting.

Duration of cefazolin prophylaxis did not impact infection risk in a murine model of joint arthroplasty

To minimize periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) risk, some clinicians prescribe extended antibiotic prophylaxis (EAP) following total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Given the limited evidence supporting EAP, we sought to evaluate impact of prophylactic antibiotic duration on PJI risk in a murine TJA model. A titanium prosthesis was implanted into the proximal tibia of 89 mice and inoculated with 102 colony forming units (cfu) of Staphylococcus aureus Xen36. Control mice (n = 20) did not receive antibiotics. Treated mice received either 24 h (n = 35) or 4 days (n = 34) of cefazolin prophylaxis. Cultures were obtained from the prostheses, tibia, femur, and knee tissues 3 weeks after surgery. All mice in the control group developed PJI. Both prophylaxis regimens reduced the rate of PJI relative to the control, with only 2/35 mice in the 24-h cohort (p < 0.0001) and 1/34 in 4-day cohort developing PJI (p < 0.0001). CFU counts from the prostheses, bone and knee tissues were reduced for the 24-h and 4-day prophylaxis cohorts relative to the control (p < 0.0001 for both). There was no difference in rates of PJI or CFU counts between the two prophylaxis cohorts (p = 0.58). Prophylactic cefazolin profoundly reduced rates of PJI in a murine model of TJA in which all control animals developed PJI. Extending cefazolin prophylaxis duration from 24 h to 4 days did not result in improved PJI rates or decreased bacterial loads in infected cases. While these results strongly support use of antibiotic prophylaxis for TJA, EAP did not appear to add benefit in the described mouse model.

Sonodynamic effect based on vancomycin-loaded microbubbles or meropenem-loaded microbubbles enhances elimination of different biofilms and bactericidal efficacy

Aims

This study investigated vancomycin-microbubbles (Vm-MBs) and meropenem (Mp)-MBs with ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction (UTMD) to disrupt biofilms and improve bactericidal efficiency, providing a new and promising strategy for the treatment of device-related infections (DRIs).

Methods

A film hydration method was used to prepare Vm-MBs and Mp-MBs and examine their characterization. Biofilms of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Escherichia coli were treated with different groups. Biofilm biomass differences were determined by staining. Thickness and bacterial viability were observed with confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). Colony counts were determined by plate-counting. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) observed bacterial morphology.

Results

The Vm-MBs and Mp-MBs met the experimental requirements. The biofilm biomass in the Vm, Vm-MBs, UTMD, and Vm-MBs + UTMD groups was significantly lower than in the control group. MRSA and E. coli biofilms were most notably damaged in the Vm-MBs + UTMD group and Mp-MBs + UTMD group, respectively, with mean 21.55% (SD 0.08) and 19.73% (SD 1.25) remaining in the biofilm biomass. Vm-MBs + UTMD significantly reduced biofilm thickness and bacterial viability (p = 0.005 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Mp-MBs + UTMD could significantly decrease biofilm thickness and bacterial viability (allp < 0.001). Plate-counting method showed that the numbers of MRSA and E. coli bacterial colonies were significantly lower in the Vm-MBs + UTMD group and the Mp, Mp-MBs, UTMD, Mp-MBs + UTMD groups compared to the control group (p = 0.031). SEM showed that the morphology and structure of MRSA and E. coli were significantly damaged in the Vm-MBs + UTMD and Mp-MBs + UTMD groups.

Conclusion

Vm-MBs or Mp-MBs combined with UTMD can effectively disrupt biofilms and protectively release antibiotics under ultrasound mediation, significantly reducing bacterial viability and improving the bactericidal effect of antibiotics.

A Comparison of Incisional Dressings and Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy for the Prevention of Infection and Wound Complications After Primary Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Incisional dressings may decrease wound complications and joint infection after total hip and knee arthroplasties (THA; TKA). However, there is no consensus on the superiority of a particular product. This study compared infection and wound complications among randomized controlled trials (RCTs) across various dressing types after primary THA and TKA.

METHODS

Scopus, Ovid/MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were queried in May 2024. A frequentist model network meta-analysis of eligible prospective RCTs compared minor and major wound complications and dressing changes using P-scores.

RESULTS

Of 3,067 compiled studies, 12 RCTs of 1,939 patients with median (interquartile range) follow-up of 42 (382) days undergoing primary THA (n = 880, 45.4%) or TKA (n = 1,059, 54.6%) with alginate (n = 208; 10.7%), absorbent (n = 236; 12.2%), gauze (n = 474; 24.4%), or hydrofiber (n = 683; 35.2%) dressings or negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT; n = 338; 17.4%) were included for meta-analysis. Compared with gauze, alginate and hydrofiber dressings were associated with fewer postoperative changes (mean difference [MD], -12.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -15.08 to -9.09, p < 0.001; MD, -3.5; 95% CI, -6.30 to -0.74, p = 0.013, respectively). In a subanalysis, silver-ion hydrofiber also was associated with fewer changes (MD, -5.0; 95% CI, -5.70 to -4.39; p < 0.001). Overall, there was no statistically significant risk of increased minor nor major wound complications including superficial and deep infections among all dressing types and NPWT compared with gauze.

CONCLUSION

Despite no association between wound complications nor infection risk among various incisional dressings and NPWT vs. gauze, the alginate, hydrofiber, and silver hydrofiber dressings had statistically fewer mean postoperative changes. Future studies are required to assess whether these dressings confer reduced infection risk.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Perioperative Cefazolin for Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients Who Have a Penicillin Allergy: Is It Safe?

BACKGROUND

Cefazolin is the standard of care for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in the United States. The potential allergic cross-reactivity between cefazolin and penicillin causes uncertainty regarding optimal antibiotic choice in patients who have a reported penicillin allergy (rPCNA). The purpose of this study was to determine the safety of perioperative cefazolin in PCNA patients undergoing primary TJA.

METHODS

We identified all patients (n = 49,842) undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (n = 25,659) or total knee arthroplasty (n = 24,183) from 2016 to 2022 who received perioperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis. Patients who had an rPCNA (n = 5,508) who received cefazolin (n = 4,938, 89.7%) were compared to rPCNA patients who did not (n = 570, 10.3%), and to patients who did not have an rPCNA (n = 43,359). The primary outcome was the rate of allergic reactions within 72 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the rates of superficial infections, deep infections, and Clostridioides difficile infections within 90 days.

RESULTS

The rate of allergic reactions was 0.1% (n = 5) in rPCNA patients who received cefazolin, compared to 0.2% (n = 1) in rPCNA patients who did not (P = .48) and 0.02% (n = 11) in patients who have no rPCNA (P = .02). Allergic reactions were mild in all 5 rPCNA patients who received cefazolin and were characterized by cutaneous symptoms (n = 4) or dyspnea in the absence of respiratory distress (n = 1) that resolved promptly with antibiotic discontinuation and administration of antihistamines and/or corticosteroids. We observed no differences in the rates of superficial infections (0.1 versus 0.2%, P = .58), deep infections (0.3 versus 0.4%, P = .68), or C difficile infections (0.04% versus 0%, P = .99) within 90 days in rPCNA patients who received cefazolin versus alternative perioperative antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

In this series of more than 5,500 patients who had an rPCNA undergoing primary TJA, perioperative prophylaxis with cefazolin resulted in a 0.1% incidence of allergic reactions that were clinically indolent. Cefazolin can be safely administered to most patients, independent of rPCNA severity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Evidence-based Approach for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is regarded as a critical factor contributing to the failure of primary and revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA). With the increasing prevalence of TJA, a significant increase in the incidence of PJI is expected. The escalating number of cases, along with the significant economic strain imposed on healthcare systems, place emphasis on the pressing need for development of effective strategies for prevention. PJI not only affects patient outcomes but also increases mortality rates, thus its prevention is a matter of vital importance. The longer-term survival rates for PJI after total hip and knee arthroplasty correspond with or are lower than those for prevalent cancers in older adults while exceeding those for other types of cancers. Because of the multifaceted nature of infection risk, a collaborative effort among healthcare professionals is essential to implementing diverse strategies for prevention. Rigorous validation of the efficacy of emerging novel preventive techniques will be required. The combined application of these strategies can minimize the risk of infection, thus their comprehensive adoption is important. Collectively, the risk of PJI could be substantially minimized by application of a multifaceted approach implementing these strategies, leading to improvement of patient outcomes and a reduced economic burden.

Trends in Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis Utilization Following Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty From 2010 to 2022

BACKGROUND

In patients considered high-risk for infection, extended oral antibiotic (EOA) prophylaxis has been demonstrated to reduce rates of prosthetic joint infection following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although national guidelines regarding their use have not yet been created, the increase in literature surrounding EOA prophylaxis suggests a potential change in practice patterns. The purpose of this study was to investigate the trends in utilization of EOA prophylaxis following THA from 2010 to 2022 and identify prescription patterns.

METHODS

A total of 646,059 primary THA and 51,879 aseptic revision THA patients were included in this study. Patients who underwent primary or aseptic revision THA between 2010 and 2022 were identified in a national administrative claims database. Rates and duration of EOA prescriptions were calculated. A secondary analysis examined rates of utilization across demographics, including patients considered high risk for infection.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2022, utilization of EOA increased by 366% and 298% following primary and revision THA, respectively. Of patients prescribed postoperative antibiotics, 30% and 59% were prescribed antibiotics for more than 7 days following primary and revision THA, respectively. Rates of utilization were similar between high-risk individuals and the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of utilization of EOA prophylaxis after THA have increased significantly since 2010. As current trends demonstrate a wide variation in prescription patterns, including in length of antibiotic duration and in patient population prescribed, guidelines surrounding the use of EOA prophylaxis after THA are necessary to promote antibiotic stewardship while preventing rates of periprosthetic joint infection.

Is Penicillin Allergy a Clinical Problem? A Systematic Review of Total Joint Arthroplasty Procedures With Implications for Patient Safety and Antibiotic Stewardship

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA) who report penicillin allergy (PA) are frequently administered second-line antibiotics, although recent evidence suggests that this may be unnecessary and could increase infection risk. Many institutions have aimed to improve antibiotic deployment via allergy testing and screening; however, there is little standardization to this process. This review aimed to evaluate (1) antibiotic selection in patients who report PA and assess the impact of screening and testing interventions, (2) rates of allergic reactions in patients who report PA, and (3) the association between reported PA and screening or testing programs and odds of surgical site infection or periprosthetic joint infection.

METHODS

PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar electronic databases were searched on February 4, 2023 to identify all studies published since January 1, 2000 that evaluated the impact of PA on patients undergoing TJA (PROSPERO study protocol registration: CRD42023394031). Articles were included if full-text manuscripts in English were available, and the study analyzed the impact of PA and related interventions on TJA patients. There were 11 studies evaluating 1,276,663 patients included. Interventions were compared via presentation of key findings regarding rates of clinically relevant or high-risk PA reported upon screenings or testings, cephalosporin utilizations, allergic reactions, and postoperative infections (surgical site infection and periprosthetic joint infection).

RESULTS

All 6 studies found that PA screening and testing markedly increase the use of first-line antibiotics. Testing showed low rates of true allergy (0.7 to 3%) and allergic reaction frequency for patients who have reported PA receiving cephalosporins was between 0% and 2%. Although there were mixed findings across studies, there was a trend toward second-line antibiotic prophylaxis being associated with a slightly higher rate of infection in PA patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Using PA screening and testing can promote antibiotic stewardship by safely increasing the use of first-line antibiotics in patients who have a reported PA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Therapeutic Study.

Infection Rates After Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty With Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis

INTRODUCTION

Few US studies have investigated the efficacy of extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOAP) in the prevention of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (R-THA). This study compared PJI rates in aseptic R-THA performed with EOAP with PJI rates in published studies of aseptic R-THA patients not receiving EOAP.

METHODS

Prospectively documented data on 127 consecutive aseptic R-THAs were retrospectively reviewed. Evidence-based perioperative infection prevention protocols were used, and all patients were discharged on 7-day EOAP. Superficial and deep infections at 30 and 90 days postoperatively and at mean latest follow-up of 27.8 months were statistically compared with all US studies reporting the prevalence of PJI after aseptic R-THA. Complications related to EOAP within 120 days of the index procedure also are reported.

RESULTS

No superficial or deep infections were observed at 30 and 90 days postoperatively when 7-day postdischarge EOAP was used. Superficial and deep infection rates were 1.57% (two patients) and 3.15% (four patients) at mean latest follow-up, respectively. Comparisons with published 30-day PJI rates of 1.37% ( P = 0.423) and 1.85% ( P = 0.257) were not statistically significant. Two of four comparisons with published 90-day PJI rates of 3.43% ( P = 0.027) and 5.74% ( P = 0.001) were statistically different. The deep PJI rate of 3.15% at mean latest follow-up was significantly lower than two of three published rates at equivalent follow-up including 10.10% ( P = 0.009) and 9.12% ( P = 0.041). No antibiotic-related complications were observed within 120 days of the index procedure.

DISCUSSION

Study findings possibly support the use of EOAP after aseptic R-THA to prevent catastrophic PJI with revision implants, indicating that the efficacy of EOAP cannot be definitively ruled-in or ruled-out based on available evidence.

Microbiology of Prosthetic Joint Infections: A Retrospective Study of an Italian Orthopaedic Hospital

The most frequent cause of periprosthetic infections (PJIs) is intraoperative contamination; hence, antibiotic prophylaxis plays a crucial role in prevention. Modifications to standard prophylaxis can be considered if there is a high incidence of microorganisms resistant to current protocols. To date, very few studies regarding microbial etiology have been published in Italy. In this single-center, retrospective study conducted at IRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi-Sant'Ambrogio in Milan, we analyzed hip, knee, and shoulder PJIs in patients undergoing first implantation between 1 January 17 and 31 December 2021. The primary aim was to derive a local microbiological case history. The secondary aim was to evaluate the adequacy of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in relation to the identified bacteria. A total of 57 PJIs and 65 pathogens were identified: 16 S. aureus, 15 S. epidermidis, and 10 other coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), which accounted for 63% of the isolations. A total of 86.7% of S. epidermidis were methicillin-resistant (MRSE). In line with other case reports, we found a predominance of staphylococcal infections, with a lower percentage of MRSA than the Italian average, while we found a high percentage of MRSE. We estimated that 44.6% of the bacteria isolated were resistant to cefazolin, our standard prophylaxis. These PJIs could be prevented by using glycopeptide alone or in combination with cefazolin, but the literature reports conflicting results regarding the adequacy of such prophylaxis. In conclusion, our study showed that in our local hospital, our standard antibiotic prophylaxis is ineffective for almost half of the cases, highlighting the importance of defining specific antibiotic guidelines based on the local bacterial prevalence of each institution.

How are Oral Antibiotics Being Used in Total Joint Arthroplasty? A Review of the Literature

While the role and benefit of perioperative intravenous (IV) antibiotics in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is well-established, oral antibiotic use in TJA remains a controversial topic with wide variations in practice patterns. With this review, we aimed to better educate the orthopedic surgeon on when and how oral antibiotics may be used most effectively in TJA patients, and to identify gaps in the literature that could be clarified with targeted research. Extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOAP) use in high-risk primary, aseptic revision, and exchange TJA for infection may be useful in decreasing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates. When prescribing oral antibiotics either as EOAP or for draining wounds, patient factors, type of surgery, and type of infectious organisms should be considered in order to optimally prevent and treat PJI. It is important to maintain antibiotic stewardship by administering the proper duration, dose, and type of antibiotics and by consulting infectious disease when necessary.

Second-Line Antibiotic Agents in Patient-Reported Penicillin or Cephalosporin Allergy Have No Negative Impact on Antibiotic Resistance After Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to compare causative bacteria and their antibiotic resistance profiles in patients developing a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) based on preoperative prophylactic antibiotic regimens in primary total hip (THA) and primary total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (TKA/UKA).

METHODS

We reviewed all cases of PJI occurring after primary THA and primary TKA/UKA, between 2011 and 2020 in a tertiary referral hospital. The standard preoperative prophylactic antibiotic for primary joint arthroplasty was cefuroxime and recommended second-line agent was clindamycin. Patients were divided by the replaced joint and analyzed independently.

RESULTS

In the THA group, culture-positive PJI was detected in 61 of 3,123 (2.0%) cefuroxime-administered cases and 6 of 206 (2.9%) noncefuroxime-administered cases. In the TKA/UKA group, culture positive PJI was identified in 21 of 2,455 (0.9%) cefuroxime-administered cases and in 3 of 211 (1.4%) noncefuroxime administered cases. The most commonly isolated bacteria in both groups were coagulase negative staphylococci (CNS). There were no statistically significant differences of pathogen spectrum depending on the preoperative antibiotic regimen detected. Antibiotic resistance of isolated bacteria was significantly different in 4 of 27 (14.8%) analyzed antibiotics in THA and in 3 of 22 (13.6%) analyzed antibiotics in TKA/UKA. In all cohorts, a high occurrence of oxacillin-resistant CNS (50.0 to 100.0%) and clindamycin-resistant CNS (56.3 to 100.0%) has been observed.

CONCLUSION

The use of the second-line antibiotic did not influence the pathogen spectrum or antibiotic resistance. However, an alarmingly high proportion of CNS strains was resistant to clindamycin.

Excellent mid- to long-term survival of tantalum metal cones in a case series of revision knee arthroplasty with severe bony defects

PURPOSE

Severe metaphyseal bone defects remain a challenge and represent a growing problem in revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). The purpose of this study was to examine the survival of first-generation tantalum metal cones (TMC) and to assess clinical and radiographic data obtained from mid- to long-term follow-ups (FU) after RTKA with severe bony defects.

METHODS

This retrospective case series included 100 consecutive patients of the same centre, who underwent RTKA surgery with TMC for tibia and/or femur bone defects between January 2011 and December 2015. Fourteen patients had died and six were lost for FU, leaving a total of eighty patients (one hundred and twelve TMC) for final evaluation. Clinical parameters including the Knee Society Score (KSS), visual analogue scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and range of motion (ROM) were determined preoperatively based on the patients' medical charts, and assessed again during the final FU after an average of 6.1 (5-9) years postoperative. Standardised postoperative X-rays were analysed during the final FU visit for osseointegration of the cones, and any signs of implant loosening were assessed with the modified Knee Society Radiographic review criteria. Perioperative and postoperative complications, reoperations, as well as implant and cone re-revisions were analysed. Survivorship analysis was performed with (a) cone-related revision for any reason and (b) implant component revision for any reason.

RESULTS

Previous RTKA had to be performed due to 64 (80%) aseptic and 16 (20%) septic failures. At the final FU, 75 (94%) tibia and 76 (95%) femur TMCs and implants were clinically stable. One patient experienced loosening of cones and implants at the femur and tibia but denied re-revision surgery. There were eight (10%) reoperations including two early wound healing problems, two inlay changes, two periprosthetic fractures, one debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR), and one secondary patella replacement. The six (7.5%) re-revisions included two aseptic loosening's of the opposite implant without TMC, one arthrodesis for recurrent instability, and three deep infections managed by two two-stage exchanges, and one amputation for persistent infection. At re-revision, all TMC cones were osteointegrated without signs of loosening. The determined clinical parameters showed significant (p < 0.001) postoperative improvement, and objective KSS was rated as excellent in 51%, and as good in 22% of patients at the final FU. The estimated 8-year Kaplan-Meier survival was 95% for TMC and 92.5% for implant components.

CONCLUSION

Tantalum metal cones (TMC) demonstrate a secure fixation for treatment of severe femoral and tibial metaphyseal bone defects during RTKA. This fixation concept showed excellent mid- to long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes with promising 8-year survival rates for cones and implant components.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective cohort study, Level IV.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Empirical Antibiotic Therapy in Primary Arthroplasty and Periprosthetic Joint Infections: Current Practice and Need for Therapy Optimization

The aim of the present work was to survey the situation of healthcare regarding the use of prophylactic and empirical antibiotics in primary arthroplasty and treatment of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). For this purpose, a survey was conducted at German university and occupational accident hospitals. Survey data was compared to previously published data on the antimicrobial regimes of PJI (n=81) patients (n=81) treated in our department between 2017 and 2020. A homogeneous picture emerged for the prophylactic administration of antibiotics in the context of primary arthroplasty. In 93.2% (elective) and 88.6% (fracture treatment) of the hospitals, first or second generation cephalosporins were administered perioperatively for infection prophylaxis in primary hip arthroplasty. The empirical antibiotic treatment of PJIs showed a clearly inhomogeneous therapeutic picture. Monotherapy with an aminopenicillin plus a beta-lactamase inhibitor is used most frequently (38.7%); first and second generation cephalosporins are used second most frequently as monotherapy (18.2%). In light of the global problem of antibiotic multi-resistance, clinical use of antibiotics has to be reasonable and effective. The present results highlight the further need to improve awareness and following existing guidelines in the administration of empirical antibiotic therapy in PJI.

The Use of Oral Antibiotics After Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Critical Analysis Review

» There is conflicting and insufficient evidence that extended oral antibiotic (EOA) therapy prevents infection in high-risk patients undergoing primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA), limiting recommendation for or against the practice.» In the case of aseptic revision TJA, the evidence is also conflicting and limited by underlying confounders, preventing recommendation for use of EOA.» There is fair evidence that use of EOA after debridement antibiotic therapy and implant retention of the prosthesis prolongs infection-free survival, but randomized controlled trials are needed. On the other hand, there is strong evidence that patients undergoing 2-stage revision should receive a period of suppressive oral antibiotics after the second stage.» The optimal duration of EOA in primary TJA, aseptic revision, and debridement antibiotic therapy and implant retention of the prosthesis is unknown. However, there is strong evidence that 3 months of EOA suppression may be appropriate after reimplantation as part of 2-stage exchange arthroplasty.» Complications secondary to EOA are reported to be between 0% and 13.7%, yet are inconsistently reported and poorly defined. The risks associated with antibiotic use, including development of antimicrobial resistance, must be weighed against a possible decrease in infection rate.

The Intraoperative Use of Defensive Antibacterial Coating (DAC®) in the Form of a Gel to Prevent Peri-Implant Infections in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Clinical Narrative Review

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) in arthroplasty and osteosynthesis-associated infections (OAIs) in reconstructive surgery still represent a challenging complication in orthopaedics and traumatology causing a burden worsening the patient's quality of life, for caregiver and treating physicians, and for healthcare systems. PJIs and OAIs are the result of bacterial adhesion over an implant surface with subsequent biofilm formation. Therefore, the clinical pathological outcome is a difficult-to-eradicate persistent infection. Strategies to treat PJIs and OAIs involve debridement, the replacement of internal fixators or articular prostheses, and intravenous antibiotics. However, long treatments and surgical revision cause discomfort for patients; hence, the prevention of PJIs and OAIs represents a higher priority than treatment. Local antibiotic treatments through coating-release systems are becoming a smart approach to prevent this complication. Hydrophilic coatings, loaded with antibiotics, simultaneously provide a barrier effect against bacterial adhesion and allow for the local delivery of an antibiotic. The intraoperative use of a hyaluronan (HY)-derivative coating in the form of a gel, loaded with antibiotics to prevent PJI, has recently raised interest in orthopaedics. Current evidence supports the use of this coating in the prophylaxis of PJI and IRIs in terms of clinical outcomes and infection reduction. Thus, the purpose of this narrative review is to assess the use of a commercially available HY derivative in the form of a gel, highlighting the characteristics of this biomaterial, which makes it attractive for the management of PJIs and IRIs in orthopaedics and traumatology.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations for optimizing antimicrobial therapy used to treat bone and joint infections: an evidence-based algorithmic approach

INTRODUCTION

Bone and joint infections (BJIs) are a major health concern causing remarkable morbidity and mortality. However, which antimicrobial treatment could be the best according to specific clinical scenarios and/or to the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) features remains an unmet clinical need. This multidisciplinary opinion article aims to develop evidence-based algorithms for empirical and targeted antibiotic therapy of patients affected by BJIs.

AREAS COVERED

A multidisciplinary team of four experts had several rounds of assessment for developing algorithms devoted to empirical and targeted antimicrobial therapy of BJIs. A literature search was performed on PubMed-MEDLINE (until April 2023) to provide evidence for supporting therapeutic choices. Four different clinical scenarios were structured according to specific infection types (i.e. vertebral osteomyelitis, prosthetic joint infections, infected non-unions and other chronic osteomyelitis, and infectious arthritis), need or not of surgical intervention or revision, isolation or not of clinically relevant bacterial pathogens from blood and/or tissue cultures, and PK/PD features of antibiotics.

EXPERT OPINION

The proposed therapeutic algorithms were based on a multifaceted approach considering the peculiar features of each antibiotic (spectrum of activity, PK/PD properties, bone penetration rate, and anti-biofilm activity), and could be hopefully helpful in improving clinical outcome of BJIs.

Effect of non-cephalosporin antibiotic prophylaxis on the risk of periprosthetic joint infection after total joint replacement surgery: a retrospective study with a 1-year follow-up

Background

Cephalosporins are recommended as first-line antibiotic prophylaxis in total joint replacement surgery. Studies have shown an increased risk for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) when non-cephalosporin antibiotics have been used. This study examines the effect of non-cephalosporin antibiotic prophylaxis on the risk for PJI.

Methods

Patients with a primary hip or knee replacement performed from 2012 to 2020 were identified (27 220 joint replacements). The primary outcome was the occurrence of a PJI in a one-year follow-up. The association between perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis and the outcome was examined using logistic regression analysis.

Discussion

Cefuroxime was used as prophylaxis in 26,467 operations (97.2%), clindamycin in 654 (2.4%) and vancomycin in 72 (0.3%). The incidence of PJI was 0.86% (228/26,467) with cefuroxime and 0.80% (6/753) with other prophylactic antibiotics. There was no difference in the risk for PJI with different prophylactic antibiotics in the univariate (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.47-2.39) or multivariable analysis (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.45-2.30).

Conclusion

Non-cephalosporin antibiotic prophylaxis in primary total joint replacement surgery was not associated with an increased risk for PJI.

Prevention of surgical site infection: a ten-step approach

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing surgery. Similarly, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), is a major cause of failure after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). As the annual volume of TJA procedures is projected to rise, so will the rate of subsequent SSI and PJI. Currently, prevention has been identified as the single most important strategy for combating SSI/PJI. Hence, the present article will serve as a summary of an evidence-based ten-step approach for SSI/PJI prevention that may help orthopedic surgeons with their infection prevention strategies.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis in One-Stage Revision of Septic Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Total knee replacement (TKA) is becoming a routine procedure in orthopedic surgery. One of the possible complications of this surgery is periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study is to identify, through a literature review, which antibiotic is used as prophylaxis for septic one-stage revision TKA and what is the rationale for its use.

METHODS

We searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO on Ovid, the Cochrane Library, and the Google Scholar Database. The searches were limited by date (January 2005 to September 2022) and to the English language. All types of original research were considered, including prospective or retrospective longitudinal studies, cross-sectional studies, and randomized trials. The specific search terms were ((antibiotic [MeSH]) AND (prophylaxis)) and (TKA OR TKR OR "Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee" [MeSH] OR ((knee) adj2 (replace* OR arthroplasty* OR prosthe*))).

RESULTS

Despite our research efforts, we found no article capable of answering the question of which antibiotic to use as surgical prophylaxis for a septic revision one-stage TKA.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the research results are inconclusive, we would recommend using the same antibiotic prophylaxis as for primary joint replacement, i.e., cefazolin, as it was recommended for its low side effect rate and relative effectiveness.

Periprosthetic joint infection caused by kytococcus schroeteri: The first reported case and a review of the literature

Oftentimes, Gram-positive cocci are the cause for periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). Most of these infections include bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis or other coagulase-negative staphylococci. We here present the first case of a PJI caused by Kytococcus schroeteri. While being a Gram-positive coccus, it is very rarely the cause for infections in the human body. K. schroeteri is part of the micrococcus branch and often encountered as a symbiotic bacterium living on the skin. Regarding its pathogenic potential, not a lot is known since less than a few dozen human infections have been reported worldwide. Furthermore, many of the cases reported are either associated with implanted material, especially heart valves, or associated with patients whose immune response is deficient. Only 3 reports of osteoarticular infections are described so far.

2022 American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Symposium: Periprosthetic Joint Infection

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the leading cause of failure in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty. This article is a brief summary of a symposium on PJI that was presented at the annual AAHKS meeting. It will provide an overview of current technqiues in the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PJI. It will also highlight emerging technologies in this setting.

Preoperative allergy testing for patients reporting penicillin and cephalosporin allergies is economically justified in preventing infection after total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The use of alternative antibiotics to cefazolin has been associated with increased risk of infection after shoulder arthroplasty. Routine preoperative allergy testing in patients reporting penicillin and cephalosporin allergies increases the number able to receive cefazolin and may reduce the occurrence of infection after shoulder arthroplasty, but the financial viability of this practice is unclear. We used break-even modeling to determine the economic viability of routine preoperative allergy testing for infection prevention in total shoulder arthroplasty patients reporting penicillin and cephalosporin allergies.

METHODS

Allergy testing cost ($248.24), infection rates after shoulder arthroplasty following use of noncefazolin antibiotics (3.09%), and infection-related care costs ($55,243) were derived from the literature. A break-even equation using these variables was developed to determine the absolute risk reduction (ARR) in the infection rate that would economically justify the routine implementation of preoperative allergy testing. The number needed to treat was calculated from the ARR.

RESULTS

Preoperative allergy testing is considered economically justified if it prevents at least 1 infection out of 223 shoulder arthroplasties (ARR = 0.45%). These protocols remained economically viable at varying allergy testing costs, initial infection rates, and infection-related care costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine preoperative penicillin allergy testing is an economically justified infection prevention strategy among patients reporting penicillin and cephalosporin allergies in the setting of elective shoulder arthroplasty. Widespread implementation of this practice may considerably reduce the economic and societal burden associated with prosthetic infections.

Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis After Aseptic Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty Revisions: A Preliminary Report

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether extended oral antibiotic (EOA) prophylaxis reduces periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates after aseptic revision total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA). The literature is scarce. Therefore, we sought to ascertain whether EOA prophylaxis decreases PJI rates after aseptic first-time revision THA and TKA when compared to standard prophylaxis.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of 328 consecutive revisions (3 surgeons, single institution, from September 27, 2017 to December 31, 2019). Preoperative 2013 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, radiographs, and medications were reviewed. Inclusion criteria included aseptic first-time revision THA and TKA. Exclusion criteria were positive intraoperative cultures and/or histology, PJI (2013 MSIS criteria), hemiarthroplasty/partial arthroplasty revision, revision using foreign material (ie, mesh), metastatic bone disease, and intravenous antibiotics >24 hours after surgery. A total of 178 revisions were included, and 2 groups were set apart based on antibiotic prophylactic regime. The following were the groups: (1) EOA prophylaxis (>24 hours, n = 93) and (2) standard prophylaxis (≤24 hours, n = 85). Demographics, joint types, lengths of stay, skin-to-skin operative times, revision types, transfusions, discharge dispositions, and PJIs (per 2013 MSIS criteria) after the first-time revision were compared between groups. There were no significant differences in demographics. However, skin-to-skin operative time was significantly higher in the EOA group (123 minutes versus 98 minutes, P = .01). Mean follow-up was 849 days (range, 15-1,671). Statistical significance was set at a P value lower than .05.

RESULTS

Postoperative PJI rates were not significantly different: 2.2% EOA prophylaxis versus 3.5% standard prophylaxis (P = .671).

CONCLUSION

No significant difference was found between PJI rates between both prophylactic regimens. A large multicenter study with a larger sample size is needed to support EOA after aseptic revisions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

"Recommendations for periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) prevention: the European Knee Associates (EKA)-International Committee American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS)-Arthroplasty Society in Asia (ASIA) survey of members"

PURPOSE

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) represent a devastating consequence of total joint arthroplasty. The European Knee Associates (EKA), the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) International Committee, and the Arthroplasty Society in Asia (ASIA) board members were interested in quantifying differences in arthroplasty surgeons' use of various PJI prevention measures to provide clinical recommendations to reduce PJI incidence.

METHODS

A prospective Microsoft Forms online survey was distributed among EKA, AAHKS International Committee, and ASIA members and their affiliated arthroplasty surgeons. The survey consisted of 20 single and multiple response questions focused on PJI prevention strategies at three perioperative periods: preoperatively, intraoperatively, and postoperatively.

RESULTS

Three hundred and ninety-four arthroplasty surgeons from 6 different continents completed the survey. Preoperative: (A) PJI Risk Stratification: 40.6% routinely set thresholds (e.g., BMI, HgbA1C) to be met to qualify for surgery, 36.5% only review past medical history; 9.1% use machine learning to personalize PJI risk; (B) BMI limit: 36% no limit; 15.4% BMI < 35; 30.9% BMI < 40; 17.2% BMI < 45; (C) Nutritional status: 55.3% do not screen; among those who screen their patients (44.7%), albumin is the single most used marker (86.3%); (D) Hyperglycemia/Diabetes: 83.3% check this comorbidity; 88.1% use HgbA1C as single best screening test; (E) MRSA nasal colonization: 63.7% do not test; 28.9% test all patients; 7.4% test selectively. Intraoperative: (A) Antibiotic prophylaxis in high-risk patients: 43.4% use single antibiotic for 24 h; 21.3% use double antibiotic for 24 h; 14.2% use single/double antibiotic for 7 days postoperatively; (B) Skin-cleansing: 68.7% at home (45.6% chlorhexidine sponge; 11.9% clippers); (C) Intraoperative skin disinfection: 46.9% single chlorhexidine; 25% double chlorhexidine-povidone-iodine;15.4% single povidone-iodine; (D) Tranexamic acid (TXA) to reduce bleeding/SSI: 96% yes (51% double IV dose, 35.2% single IV dose, 23.6% intra-articular injection); (E) Surgical suction drain: 52% do not use drains; 19.7% use a drain < 24 h; (F) Intra-articular lavage: 64.9% use only saline; 28.1% use dilute povidone-iodine; (G) Antibiotic local delivery to prevent PJI: 82.4% use antibiotic-added cement. Postoperative: (A) Routine monitoring of PJI serologic markers: 42% only in symptomatic patients; 34.2% do not; 20.8% in all patients; (B) Serologic markers to rule in/out PJI: 95.9% CRP; 71% SEDRATE; 60.6% WBC; (C) Synovial fluid test to rule in/out PJI: 79.6% culture/sensitivity; 69.5% WBC count; 31.4% CRP.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey demonstrated that notable differences still exist in the application of PJI preventive measures across different geographic areas: Optimizing the patient preoperatively and applying multimodal intraoperative strategies represent newer, clinically relevant steps in the effort to reduce the burden of PJI. More uniform guidelines still need to be produced from international scientific societies in order facilitate a more comprehensive approach to this devastating complication.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Post-operative prophylactic antibiotics in aseptic revision hip and knee arthroplasty: a propensity score matching analysis

The use of extended antibiotic (EA) prophylaxis (> 24 h) remains controversial in aseptic revision arthroplasty. We sought to determine whether EA prophylaxis reduces the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in aseptic revision hip and knee arthroplasty. A total of 2800 patients undergoing aseptic revision hip and knee arthroplasty at five institutional databases from 2008 to 2017 were evaluated. One to two nearest-neighbor propensity score matching analysis was conducted between patients who did and did not receive extended antibiotic prophylaxis. The matching elements included age, sex, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, hospital distribution, year of surgery, joint (hip or knee), surgical time, CRP, preoperative hemoglobin, albumin, and length of stay. The primary outcome was the development of PJI, which was assessed at 30 days, 90 days, and 1 year following revision and analyzed separately. A total of 2467 (88%) patients received EA prophylaxis, and 333 (12%) patients received standard antibiotic (SA) prophylaxis (≤ 24 h). In the propensity-matched analysis, there was no difference between patients who received EA prophylaxis and those who did not in terms of 30-day PJI (0.3% vs. 0.3%, p = 1.00), 90-day PJI (1.7% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.62) and 1- year PJI (3.8% vs. 6.0%, p = 0.109). For revision hip, the incidence of PJI was 0.2% vs 0% at 30 days (p = 0.482), 1.6% vs 1.4% at 90 days (p = 0.837), and 3.4% vs 5.1% at 1 year (p = 0.305) in the EA and SA group. For revision knee, the incidence of PJI was 0.4% vs 0.9% at 30 days (p = 0.63), 1.8% vs 3.4% at 90 days (p = 0.331), and 4.4% vs 7.8% at 1 year (p = 0.203) in the EA and SA group. A post hoc power analysis revealed an adequate sample size with a beta value of 83%. In addition, the risks of Clostridium difficile and resistant organism infection were not increased. This multi-institutional study demonstrated no difference in the rate of PJIs between patients who received extended antibiotic prophylaxis and those who did not in aseptic revision arthroplasty. The risk of C. difficile and resistant organism infection was not increased with prolonged antibiotic use.

The Impact of Patient-Reported Penicillin or Cephalosporin Allergy on the Occurrence of the Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Primary Knee and Hip Arthroplasty

Reducing the risk of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) requires a multi-pronged strategy including usage of a prophylactic antibiotic. A history of penicillin or cephalosporin allergy often leads to a change in prophylactic antibiotic regimen to avoid serious side effects. The purpose of the present retrospective study was to determine incidence of PJI based on perioperative antibiotic regimen in total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). A review of all primary THAs, primary TKAs and primary UKAs, undertaken between 2011 and 2020 in a tertiary referral hospital, was performed. The standard perioperative antibiotic for joint arthroplasty (JA) in the analyzed tertiary hospital is cefuroxime. There were no differences in prophylactic antibiotic regimen over time. In 7.9% (211 of 2666) of knee arthroplasties and in 6.0% (206 of 3419) of total hip arthroplasties, a second-line prophylactic antibiotic was used. There was no statistically significant higher occurrence of PJI between the first-line and second-line prophylactic antibiotic in knee arthroplasties (p = 0.403) as well as in total hip arthroplasties (p = 0.309). No relevant differences in age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and body mass index (BMI) between the groups were observed.

Prevention of Orthopedic Prosthetic Infections Using Evidence-Based Surgical Site Infection Care Bundles: A Narrative Review

Background: The number of primary/revision total joint replacements (TJR) are expected to increase substantially with an aging population and increasing prevalence of comorbid conditions. The 30-day re-admission rate, in all orthopedic specialties, is 5.4% (range, 4.8%-6.0%). A recent publication has documented that the surgical site infection (SSI) infection rate associated with revision total knee (rTKR, 15.6%) and revision total hip (rTHR, 8.6%) arthroplasties are four to seven times the rate of the primary procedures (2.1%-2.2%). These orthopedic infections prolong hospital stays, double re-admissions, and increase healthcare costs by a factor of 300%. Methods: A search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library publications, which reported the infection risk after TKR and THR, was undertaken (January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2021). The search also included documentation of evidence-based practices that lead to improved post-operative outcomes. Results: The evidence-based approach to reducing the risk of SSI was grouped into pre-operative, peri-operative, and post-operative periods. Surgical care bundles have existed within other surgical disciplines for more than 20 years, although their use is relatively new in peri-operative orthopedic surgical care. Pre-admission chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) showers/cleansing, staphylococcal decolonization, maintenance of normothermia, wound irrigation, antimicrobial suture wound closure, and post-operative wound care has been shown to improve clinical outcome in randomized controlled studies and meta-analyses. Conclusions: Evidence-based infection prevention care bundles have improved clinical outcomes in all surgical disciplines. The significant post-operative morbidity, mortality, and healthcare cost, associated with SSIs after TJR can be reduced by introduction of evidence-based pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative interventions.

Is There a Role for Extended Postoperative Oral Antibiotics in Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty High-Risk Individuals After Surgery for Periprosthetic Joint Infection?

With moderate level of evidence, 76% of delegates (super majority/strong consensus) of the most recent (2018) International Consensus Meeting on orthopedic infections agreed that extended oral antibiotics directed toward initial organisms after reimplantation for 3 months probably reduce the risk of failure due to periprosthetic joint infection. Nevertheless, the use of oral antibiotics becomes increasingly problematic with extended or long-term utilization. The development of antibiotic resistance and side effects are of particular concern, the most common being Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. Antibiotic stewardship is important when preventing and treating periprosthetic joint infection to hopefully prevent increase of bacterial antibiotic resistance. Two recent studies showed a significant difference in the incidence of surgical site infections after arthroplasty procedures in high-risk patients during short- and long-term follow-up without significant increase of adverse effects. However, another study showed no significant benefit of this practice. This summary discussed the details of those studies suggesting that the use of extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis in high-risk primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty may reduce infection rates; nonetheless, additional higher level of evidence (level 1) is still needed to validate this practice as its potential adverse effects are not clear.

Preoperative Prophylactic Antibiotics in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: What, When, and How

Although there are numerous nonpatient-related factors that may help reduce infection risk, the proper use of prophylactic antibiotics is most responsible for reducing infection. The role of prophylactic antibiotics is to reduce early periprosthetic joint replacement, which is accomplished by having adequate antibiotic tissue levels at the time of skin incision. The goal of this section of the symposium is to review current antibiotic recommendations, how to manage patients with a self-reported penicillin allergy, review the use of dual antibiotics, discuss the use of antibiotics in the outpatient total joint setting, as well as very briefly discuss the administration of intraosseous antibiotics in knee arthroplasty.

Modernizing Total Hip Arthroplasty Perioperative Pathways: The Implementation of ERAS-Outpatient Protocol

Pressure to reduce healthcare costs, limited hospital availability along with improvements in surgical technique and perioperative care motivated many centers to focus on outpatient pathway implementation. However, in many short-stay protocols, the focus has shifted away from aiming to reduce complications and improved rehabilitation, to using length of stay as the main factor of success. To improve patient outcomes and maintain safety, the best way to implement a successful outpatient program would be to combine it with the principles of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), and to improve patient recovery to a level where the patient is able to leave the hospital sooner. This article delivers a case for modernizing total hip arthroplasty perioperative pathways by implementing ERAS-outpatient protocols.

Extended Postoperative Prophylactic Antibiotics for Primary and Aseptic Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Limited literature is available about the effects of extended (>24 hours) antibiotic use after primary and aseptic revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) on rates of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to systematically review the outcomes of extended prophylactic antibiotic use.

METHODS

A systematic search on PubMed and EMBASE databases was done in August 2021 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Articles that met inclusion criteria were screened by two separate authors. Basic patient demographics, route of delivery, type, dose, frequency of the antibiotic, rates of PJI, and length of stay were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 11 articles published from 1979 to 2021 were included in the final analysis. Two studies evaluated aseptic revisions, seven evaluated primary TJA, and two studies evaluated both. Five studies were randomized controlled trials, one multicenter nonrandomized trial, and five retrospective cohort studies. All 11 studies used a cephalosporin or a penicillin antibiotic in both the control and cohort groups. Five studies used intravenous (IV) antibiotics, one study used oral (PO) antibiotics, and the other five studies used both IV and PO antibiotics. Length of stay was reported in three studies, all using IV antibiotics. All 11 studies evaluated rates of PJI, while four studies evaluated included rates of superficial surgical site infections. Four studies showed a statistically significant decrease in PJI when compared with a control group, while seven studies showed no statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

There is conflicting evidence regarding the benefit of extended (>24 hours) antibiotics, IV or PO, after TJA. As of now, current guidelines do not support the use of extended antibiotics; future prospective clinical trials are needed to help support these claims.

Reduced Infection Rate After Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty With Extended Oral Antibiotic Protocol

BACKGROUND

The optimal postoperative antibiotic duration has not been determined for aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty (R-TKA) where the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is 3%-7.5%. This study compared PJI rates in aseptic R-TKA performed with extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOAP) to published rates.

METHODS

Aseptic R-TKAs consecutively performed between 2013 and 2017 at a tertiary care referral center in the American Midwest were retrospectively reviewed. All patients were administered intravenous antibiotics while hospitalized and discharged on 7-day oral antibiotic prophylaxis. Infection rates and antibiotic-related complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven percent of the 176 analysis patients were female, with an average age of 64 years and body mass index of 35 kg/m². Instability and aseptic loosening comprised 86% of revision diagnoses. Overall, 87.5% of intraoperative cultures were negative, and the remainder were single positive cultures considered contaminants. PJI rates were 0% at 90 days, 1.8% (95% confidence interval 0.4%-5.3%) at 1 year, and 2.2% (95% confidence interval 0.6%-5.7%) at mean follow-up of approximately 3 years (range, 7-65 months).

CONCLUSION

EOAP after aseptic R-TKA resulted in a PJI rate equivalent to primary TKA, representing a 2- to-4-fold decrease compared with published aseptic R-TKA infection rates. Further study on the benefits and costs of EOAP after aseptic R-TKA is encouraged.

What is the rate of reinfection with different and difficult-to-treat bacteria after failed one-stage septic knee exchange?

PURPOSE

Re-operation after septic failure of a one-stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee is a highly challenging procedure with concerns over residual bone stock, soft tissues, and stability. The associated changes in microbiology in cases of reinfection are still largely unknown.

METHODS

A comprehensive analysis was performed of all patients treated at our tertiary institution between 2001 and 2017 who developed reinfection after a one-stage exchange for PJI of the knee. Prerequisites for inclusion were a certain diagnosis of PJI according to the ICM criteria and a minimum follow-up of three years. Data on comorbidities, previous surgical interventions, microbiological findings at the time of the initial one-stage exchange and at the time of reinfection, detection methods, and antibiotic resistance patterns were retrospectively studied.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Reinfection occurred after a mean time interval of 27.7 months (SD ± 33.9, range 1-165). Ten types of bacteria were found that were not present before the one-stage exchange. The causative pathogen remained identical in 22 patients (33%) and additional microorganisms were detected in ten patients (15%). Half of the reinfections were however due to (a) completely different microorganism(s). A significant increase in the number of PJIs on the basis of high-virulent (23 vs 30, p = 0.017) and difficult-to-treat bacteria (13 vs 24, p = 0.035) was found.

CONCLUSION

The present study provides a novel insight into the microbiological changes following septic failure after one-stage exchange for PJI of the knee. A higher prevalence of more difficult-to-treat bacteria might increase the complexity of subsequent procedures. Also, a longer follow-up of these patients than previously suggested seems in order.

A Simple Algorithmic Approach Allows the Safe Use of Cephalosporin in "Penicillin-Allergic" Patients without the Need for Allergy Testing

BACKGROUND

Patients who report a penicillin allergy are often given second-line antibiotic prophylaxis during total joint arthroplasty (TJA), with only a minority of patients undergoing additional consultations and allergy testing. In an effort to increase the use of cephalosporin prophylaxis in TJA, the present study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a simple, protocol-driven penicillin allergy screening program without the need for additional work-up.

METHODS

Following implementation of a questionnaire-based screening protocol in May 2019, all patients scheduled for primary TJA were risk-stratified into low or high-risk categories. The low-risk cohort received cefazolin, and the high-risk cohort received non-cefazolin antibiotics. Patients were monitored prospectively, and data on antibiotic usage and adverse outcomes were documented. The protocol group (n = 2,078) was propensity score matched 1:1 with a control group that included patients who underwent TJA in the same institution prior to implementation of the protocol. The primary end point was the efficacy of the protocol in reducing unnecessary use of non-cephalosporin antibiotics for prophylaxis. Secondary outcomes included the rate of surgical site infections and allergic reactions to the administered antibiotic.

RESULTS

A total of 357 patients (17.2%) reported a penicillin allergy in the protocol group compared with 310 patients (14.9%) with a recorded allergy in the control group (p = 0.052). The number of patients who received non-cephalosporin antibiotics was significantly lower in the protocol group (5.7% compared with 15.2% in the control group; p < 0.001), whereas there was no difference in the rate of total allergic reactions (0.8% compared with 0.7%, respectively; p = 0.857). Of the 239 low-risk patients (66.9%) in the protocol group, only 3 (1.3%) experienced a mild cutaneous reaction following cefazolin administration. There were no differences in the rates of superficial wound, deep periprosthetic, or Clostridioides difficile infections between the protocol and control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple screening protocol allowed two-thirds of patients with a self-reported allergy to receive cefazolin without the need for additional consultations or testing. We believe this protocol can be safely implemented to increase the rate of cefazolin usage without a corresponding increase in the number of allergic reactions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

What Are the Long-term Outcomes of Mortality, Quality of Life, and Hip Function after Prosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip? A 10-year Follow-up from Sweden

BACKGROUND

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a complication after arthroplasty that negatively affects patient health. However, prior reports have not addressed the long-term consequences of hip PJI in terms of patient mortality, quality of life, and hip function.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

At a minimum of 10 years after PJI in patients undergoing primary THA, in the context of several large, national databases in Sweden, we asked: (1) Is mortality increased for patients with PJI after THA compared with patients with a noninfected THA? (2) Does PJI of the hip have a negative influence on quality of life as measured by the Euro-QoL-5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L), ambulatory aids, residential status, and hip function as measured by the Oxford Hip Score (OHS)? (3) Which factors are associated with poor patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients with PJI after primary THA?

METHODS

This study included 442 patients with a PJI after primary THA, from a previously published national study, including all patients with a THA performed from 2005 to 2008 in Sweden (n = 45,570) recruited from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Registry (SHAR). Possible deep PJIs were identified in the Swedish Dispensed Drug Registry and verified by review of medical records. Mortality in patients with PJI was compared with the remaining cohort of 45,128 patients undergoing primary THA who did not have PJI. Mortality data were retrieved from the SHAR, which in turn is updated daily from the population registry. A subgroup analysis of patients who underwent primary THA in 2008 was performed to adjust for the effect of comorbidities on mortality, as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores became available in the SHAR at that time. For the PROM analysis, we identified three controls matched by age, gender, indication for surgery, and year of operation to each living PJI patient. A questionnaire including EQ-5D-5L, ambulatory aids, residential status, and OHS was collected from patients with PJI and controls at a mean of 11 years from the primary procedure. Apart from age and gender, we analyzed reoperation data (such as number of reoperations and surgical approach) and final prosthesis in situ to explore possible factors associated with poor PROM results.

RESULTS

After controlling for differences in sex, age, and indication for surgery, we found the all-cause 10-year mortality higher for patients with PJI (45%) compared with patients undergoing THA without PJI (29%) (odds ratio 1.4 [95% CI 1.2 to 1.6]; p < 0.001). The questionnaire, with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up, revealed a lower EQ-5D-5L index score (0.83 versus 0.94, -0.13 [95% CI -0.18 to -0.08; p < 0.001]), greater proportion of assisted living (21% versus 12%, OR 2.0 [95% CI 1.2 to 3.3]; p = 0.01), greater need of ambulatory aids (65% versus 42%, OR 3.1 [95% 2.1 to 4.8]; p < 0.001), and a lower OHS score (36 versus 44, -5.9 [-7.7 to -4.0]; p < 0.001) for patients with PJI than for matched controls. Factors associated with lower OHS score for patients with PJI were three or more reoperations (-8.0 [95% CI -13.0 to -3.2]; p = 0.01) and a direct lateral approach used at revision surgery compared with a posterior approach (-4.3 [95% CI -7.7 to -0.9]; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

In this study, we found that PJI after THA has a negative impact on mortality, long-term health-related quality of life, and hip function. Furthermore, the subgroup analysis showed that modifiable factors such as the number of reoperations and surgical approach are associated with poorer hip function. This emphasizes the importance of prompt, proper initial treatment to reduce repeated surgery to minimize the negative long-term effects of hip PJI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis: Single and 24-Hour Antibiotic Dosages are Equally Effective at Preventing Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is used to prevent surgical site infection and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Secondary to a national shortage of cefazolin, patients at our institution began receiving a single preoperative prophylactic antibiotic dose for primary TJA and no 24-hour postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. The purpose of the study was to compare the efficacy of single-dose antibiotic use versus 24-hour dosing of prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of acute PJI and short-term complications after primary TJA.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 3317 patients undergoing primary TJA performed from January 2015 to December 2019 identified 554 patients who received a single dose of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis during the antibiotic shortage and 2763 patients who received post-TJA 24-hour antibiotic prophylaxis before the shortage. Patient records were evaluated for acute PJI, superficial infection, 90-day reoperation, and 90-day complications.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between single-dose and 24-hour antibiotic groups. Similarly, there were no significant differences in rates of acute PJI (0.7% vs 0.2%; P = .301), superficial infection (2.4% vs 1.4%; P = .221), 90-day reoperation (2.1% vs 1.1%; P = .155), and 90-day complications (9.9% vs 7.9%; P = .169) between single and 24-hour antibiotic dose. Post hoc power analysis demonstrated adequate sample size, beta = 93%.

CONCLUSION

Single-dose prophylactic antibiotics did not lead to an increased risk of acute PJI or short-term complications after TJA. Our study suggests that administration of a single antibiotic dose may be safely considered in patients undergoing routine primary TJA.

Antibiotic Stewardship Interventions Improve Choice of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Total Joint Arthroplasty in Patients with Reported Penicillin Allergies

BACKGROUND

Most patients who report a penicillin allergy can tolerate cefazolin, the preferred prophylaxis in a total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Regardless, patients with a reported penicillin allergy are less likely to receive first-line perioperative antibiotics as a result of inaccurate penicillin allergy documentation and misconceptions regarding cross-reactivity between penicillin and cephalosporins. The over-reporting of penicillin allergies and the safety of cephalosporins in patients with reported penicillin allergies have been well established throughout the evidence [13].

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The study sought to answer two questions: (1) Do antibiotic stewardship interventions improve adherence to appropriate prophylactic antibiotic usage in patients with a documented penicillin allergy undergoing primary TJA? (2) What is the risk of allergic or adverse reactions secondary to cefazolin use in patients with a documented penicillin allergy?

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective study of orthopaedic patients older than 18 years who underwent a primary elective TJA at a 261-bed community hospital. The study had two periods: the preintervention period ran from March 1, 2017 to August 30, 2017 and the postintervention period was from March 1, 2019 to August 30, 2019. A total of 396 patients with a history of a documented penicillin allergy underwent a THA or TKA during the study periods. After reviewing every fourth patient with a history of a documented penicillin allergy who met study inclusion criteria and excluding those patients who had a codocumented cephalosporin allergy, a total of 180 patients with a documented penicillin allergy were evaluated (90 patients in the preintervention group and 90 patients in the postintervention group). To answer our first study question, regarding whether antibiotic stewardship interventions improve adherence to appropriate prophylactic antibiotic usage in patients with a documented penicillin allergy undergoing primary TJA, we evaluated appropriate antibiotic usage pre- and postintervention. To answer our second study question, concerning the risk of allergic or adverse reactions secondary to cefazolin use in patients with a documented penicillin allergy, we reviewed signs of allergic reactions in patients who received cefazolin for a primary TJA and had a documented penicillin allergy.

RESULTS

Postintervention antibiotic use was more appropriate (91% [82 of 90] versus 54% [49 of 90], risk ratio 1.67 [95% confidence interval 1.37 to 2.04]; p < 0.01), particularly in patients with nonsevere allergy (preintervention: 47% [36 of 76] versus postintervention: 96% [76 of 79]; p < 0.01). No patients had signs of an allergic reaction related to cefazolin, including eight patients with severe penicillin allergy.

CONCLUSION

A multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention increased the appropriateness of antibiotic prophylaxis in elective primary TJA. Patients with nonsevere penicillin allergies, even those reporting hives or local swelling, tolerated cefazolin. Antibiotic stewardship interventions can be implemented across institutions to expand cephalosporin use in patients with a reported penicillin allergy within orthopaedic TJA patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Effectiveness of Different Wound Dressings in the Reduction of Blisters and Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal type of dressing in the setting of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) remains uncertain. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to compare various wound dressings and identify the optimal type of dressings for blister reduction and prevention of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients after TJA.

METHODS

Studies comparing 2 or more dressing groups after TJA (hip or knee) were systematically searched on PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. Two authors performed the study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. Both outcomes were assessed using odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probabilities to determine a hierarchy of dressings. A sensitivity analysis was performed to reduce the effect of intransitivity between studies.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies, consisting of 12 dressing types in 7293 TJAs, were included in the final analysis. The highest incidence of blisters occurred when using negative-pressure wound therapy (OR 9.33, 95% CI 3.51-24.83, vs gauze). All dressings ranked better than gauze in infection rate except for hydrofiber (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.02-112.53) and fabric dressings (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.24-9.02). For blister reduction, alginate (SUCRA = 87.7%) and hydrofiber with hydrocolloid (SUCRA = 92.3%) were ranked as the optimal dressings before and after a sensitivity analysis, respectively. Antimicrobial dressing (SUCRA = 83.7%) demonstrated the most efficacy for preventing PJI.

CONCLUSION

Based on the evidence from our analysis, an antimicrobial dressing is the optimal dressing to prevent PJI. If negative-pressure wound therapy is used, surgeons should be aware of an increased incidence of blister formation. Further studies should focus on the alginate versus hydrofiber and hydrocolloid dressing to determine the optimal dressing to reduce blisters.

Developing an enhanced recovery after surgery program for oncology patients who undergo hip or knee reconstruction surgery

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are applied in orthopedic surgery and are intended to reduce perioperative stress by implementing combined evidence-based practices with the cooperation of various health professionals as an interdisciplinary team. ERAS pathways include pre-operative patient counselling, regional anesthesia and analgesia techniques, post-operative pain management, early mobilization and early feeding. Studies have shown improvement in the recovery of patients who followed an ERAS program after hip or knee arthroplasty, compared with those who followed a traditional care approach. ERAS protocols reduce post-operative stress, contribute to rapid recovery, shorten length of stay (LOS) without increasing the complications or readmissions, improve patient satisfaction and decrease the hospital costs. We suggest that the ERAS pathway could reduce the LOS in hospital for patients undergoing total hip replacement or total knee replacement. These programs require good organization and handling by the multidisciplinary team. ERAS programs increase patient's satisfaction due to their active participation which they experience as personalized treatment. The aim of the study was to develop an ERAS protocol for oncology patients who undergo bone reconstruction surgeries using massive endoprosthesis, with a view to improving the surgical outcomes.