The Cost-Effectiveness of Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Infection Prevention After Total Joint Arthroplasty in High-Risk Patients

Rates of Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Among High-Risk and Standard-Risk Patients: 2009 to 2022

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence suggests extended courses of oral antibiotics (EOA) after total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may reduce the risk of periprosthetic joint infection in high-risk patients. EOA rates after total hip arthroplasty have risen significantly. However, there is a lack of epidemiologic data on EOA prophylaxis following TKA. Therefore, we investigated national trends in EOA prophylaxis for primary TKA and whether these rates were reflective of changes in patient risk or prescribing practices.

METHODS

Adult patients undergoing TKA between 2009 and 2022 were identified in a national insurance claims database. An EOA was defined as a 7 to 14-day course of a first-generation cephalosporin, cefdinir, clindamycin, doxycycline, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole filled between 5 days preoperatively and 3 days postoperatively. Annual EOA rates were calculated and stratified by preoperative periprosthetic joint infection risk. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore whether rates reflected changing patient characteristics. Future rates were predicted with time-series forecasting.

RESULTS

We identified 712,212 eligible TKA cases. EOA rates rose from 0.91% in 2009 to 7.95% in 2022. Rates increased by 686% among standard-risk patients and 786% among high-risk patients. Logistic regression models using patient comorbidities could not account for changes in EOA rates. EOA rates were projected to rise to 18.3% by 2030.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of EOA prophylaxis after TKA rose significantly from 2009 to 2022. This trend could not be explained by changing patient characteristics, suggesting widespread changes in antibiotic prescribing practices, which may be reflective of recent studies favoring EOA use. There is a need for further high-quality research examining the safety, efficacy, and role of EOA prophylaxis in the primary TKA patient population.

Benefits and Adverse Events Associated With Extended Antibiotic Use for One Year Following Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are common and serious complications following knee and hip arthroplasty. Our previous retrospective study suggested extended antibiotics following debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) decreased failure rates and were not associated with increased adverse events (AEs) as compared to a standard 6 weeks of antibiotic therapy. Further, extended antibiotics beyond one year did not provide additional benefits. These observations were tested in this prospective cohort study.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of patients who underwent DAIR for total knee arthroplasty PJI and received primary antibiotics were compared to patients who received primary antibiotics combined with extended antibiotics for one year. Participants had a minimum of 2-year follow-up after the final dose of antibiotics.

RESULTS

A prospective cohort of 79 patients was followed, where 39 participants (52.7%) received primary antibiotics and 35 participants (47.3%) received both primary and extended antibiotics following DAIR. Multivariable time-to-event analyses revealed that extended antibiotic use was an independent predictor of treatment success. Infection-free survival differed significantly between the two treatment regimens, as the hazard of PJI failure was significantly lower for extended antibiotics as compared to primary antibiotics alone (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.46 [0.24 to 0.87], P = 0.017). The AE rates did not significantly differ between patients treated with primary antibiotics only versus primary combined with extended antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective cohort study supports our previous observations that extended antibiotics for one year were associated with lower failure rates as compared to primary antibiotics alone. Extended antibiotics after primary antibiotics were not found to be associated with increased AEs as compared to only primary antibiotics.

Should All Patients Receive Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis? Defining Its Role in Patients Undergoing Primary and Aseptic Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Prior studies have demonstrated reduced periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates following extended oral antibiotics (EOAs) for high-risk patients undergoing primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA). This study compared 3-month PJI rates in all patients undergoing primary or aseptic revision TJA with or without EOA prophylaxis.

METHODS

In total, 2,982 consecutive primary (n = 2,677) and aseptic revision (n = 305) TJAs were performed by a single, fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeon from 2016 to 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Beginning January 2020, all patients received 7 days of 300 mg oral cefdinir twice daily immediately postoperatively. Rates of PJI at 3 months were compared between patients who received or did not receive EOA.

RESULTS

Rates of PJI at 3 months in patients undergoing primary and aseptic revision TJA were significantly lower in those receiving EOA prophylaxis compared to those who did not (0.41 versus 1.13%, respectively; P = .02). After primary TJA, lower PJI rates were observed with EOA prophylaxis utilization (0.23 versus 0.74%, P = .04; odds ratio [OR] 3.85). Following aseptic revision TJA, PJI rates trended toward a significant decrease with the EOA compared to without (1.88 versus 4.83%, respectively; P = .16; OR 2.71).

CONCLUSIONS

All patients undergoing primary or aseptic revision TJA who received EOA prophylaxis were 3.85 and 2.71 times less likely, respectively, to develop PJI at 3 months compared to those without EOA. Future studies are needed to determine if these results are maintained at postoperative time periods beyond 3 months following primary TJA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, Retrospective review.

The cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis medications for preventing periprosthetic fractures following femoral neck fracture indicated hip arthroplasty: a break-even analysis

Osteoporosis treatment following arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture (FNF) is associated with lower rates of periprosthetic fracture (PPF). Our study evaluated the economic viability of treatment in patients following arthroplasty and demonstrates that treatment with oral bisphosphonates can be cost-effective in preventing PPF.

INTRODUCTION

Osteoporosis treatment following arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture (FNF) is associated with lower rates of periprosthetic fracture (PPF). Although cost-effective in reducing the rate of secondary fragility fracture, the economic viability of osteoporosis treatment in preventing PPF has not been evaluated. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to use a break-even analysis to determine whether and which current osteoporosis medications are cost-effective in preventing PPF following arthroplasty for FNFs.

METHODS

Three-year average cost of osteoporosis medication (oral bisphosphonates, estrogen hormonal therapy, intravenous (IV) bisphosphonates, denosumab, teriparatide, and abaloparatide), costs of PPF care, and PPF rates in patients who underwent hip arthroplasty for FNFs without osteoporosis treatment were used to perform a break-even analysis. The absolute risk reduction (ARR) related to osteoporosis treatment and sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this intervention and break-even PPF rates.

RESULTS

Oral bisphosphonate therapy following arthroplasty for hip fractures would be economically justified if it prevents one out of 56 PPFs (ARR, 1.8%). Given the current cost and incidence of PPF, overall treatment can only be economically viable for PPF prophylaxis if the 3-year costs of these agents are less than $1500.

CONCLUSION

The utilization of lower cost osteoporosis medications such as oral bisphosphonates and estrogen hormonal therapy as PPF prophylaxis in this patient population would be economically viable if they reduce the PPF rate by 1.8% and 1.5%, respectively. For IV bisphosphonates and newer agents to be economically viable as PPF prophylaxis in the USA, their costs need to be significantly reduced.

Socioeconomic Disadvantage Predicts Decreased Likelihood of Maintaining a Functional Knee Arthroplasty Following Treatment for Prosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) carries major morbidity and mortality as well as a complicated and lengthy treatment course. In patients who have high degrees of socioeconomic disadvantage, this may be a particularly devastating complication. Our study sought to evaluate the impact of socioeconomic deprivation on outcomes following treatment for PJI of the knee.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures performed for the treatment of initial PJI between 2008 and 2020 at a single tertiary care center in the United States. The Area Deprivation Index (ADI) was used to quantify socioeconomic deprivation. The primary outcome measure was presence of a functional knee joint at the time of most recent follow-up defined as TKA components or an articulating spacer. A total of 96 patients were included for analysis. The median follow-up duration was 26.5 months.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the rate of treatment failure (P = .63). However, the proportion of patients who had a functional knee arthroplasty (in contrast to having undergone arthrodesis, amputation, or retention of a static spacer) declined significantly with increasing ADI index (81.8% for the least disadvantaged group, 58.7% for the middle group, 42.9% for the most disadvantaged group, P = .021).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who have a higher socioeconomic disadvantage as measured by ADI are less likely to maintain a functional knee arthroplasty following treatment for TKA PJI. These findings support continued efforts to improve access to care and optimize treatment plans for patients who have socioeconomic disadvantage.

How Many Patients Qualify for Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis Infection Following Primary and Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasties?

Extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOAP) has been suggested to reduce rates of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) postoperatively after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The purpose of this multicenter study is to define how many TJA patients are considered high risk for developing PJI based on published EOAP criteria and determine whether this status is associated with socioeconomic or demographic factors. All primary and aseptic revision TJAs performed in 2019 at three academic medical centers were reviewed. High-risk status was defined based on prior published EOAP criteria. Area deprivation index (ADI) was calculated as a measure of socioeconomic status. Data were reported as means with standard deviation. Both overall and institutional differences were compared. Of the 2,511 patients (2,042 primary and 469 revision) in this cohort, 73.3% met criteria for high risk (primary: 72.9% [1,490] and revision: 74.6% [350]). Patient's race or age did not have a significant impact on risk designation; however, a larger proportion of high-risk patients were women (p = 0.002) and had higher Elixhauser scores (p < 0.001). The mean ADI for high-risk patients was higher (more disadvantaged) than for standard-risk patients (64.0 [20.8] vs. 59.4 [59.4]) (p < 0.001). Over 72% of primary and revision TJA patients at three medical centers met published criteria for EOAP. These patients were more often women, had more comorbidities, and lived in more disadvantaged areas. Our findings suggest that most patients qualify for EOAP, which may call for more stringent criteria on who would benefit extended antibiotic prophylaxis.

Periprosthetic Infection in Patients With Multiple Joint Arthroplasties

The number of total joint arthroplasties performed in the United States is increasing every year. Owing to the aging population and excellent long-term prosthesis survival, 45% of patients who undergo joint arthroplasty will receive two or more joint arthroplasties during their lifetimes. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is among the most common complications after arthroplasty. Evaluation and treatment of PJI in patients with multiple joint arthroplasties is challenging, and no consensus exists for the optimal management. Multiple PJI can occur simultaneously, synchronous, or separated by extended time, metachronous. Patient risk factors for both scenarios have been reported and may guide evaluation and long-term management. Whether to perform joint aspiration for asymptomatic prosthesis in the presence of suspected PJI in patients with multiple joint arthroplasties is controversial. Furthermore, no consensus exists regarding whether patients who have multiple joint arthroplasties and develop PJI in a single joint should be considered for prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce the risk of future infections. Finally, the optimal treatment of synchronous joint infections whether by débridement, antibiotics and implant retention, and one-stage or two-stage revision has not been defined. This review will summarize the best information available and provide pragmatic management strategies.

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.

Enhancing Surgical Outcomes: A Critical Review of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Orthopedic Surgery

The postoperative burden remains significant due to the possibility of prolonged hospitalization, escalated healthcare costs, and patient distress caused by postorthopedic surgical site infections (SSIs). Orthopedic surgery is likewise faced with a significant challenge posed by these conditions. A positive association has been observed between the presence of postorthopedic SSIs and heightened susceptibility to adverse health outcomes, along with elevated rates of morbidity and mortality. Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) reduces the risk of acquiring an SSI. Closed fractures, open fractures, arthroplasty, and percutaneous fixation each possess distinct attributes that impact the data and antimicrobial therapy. When implementing SAP, it is crucial to strike a delicate equilibrium between maintaining effective antibiotic stewardship protocols and preventing the occurrence of SSIs. This practice effectively prevents both the incidence of negative consequences and the emergence of antibiotic resistance. The objective of this study was to examine the existing literature on the use of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in orthopedic surgery and explore the potential consequences associated with the inappropriate administration of antibiotics.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Normal-Saline Pulsed Lavage for Infection Prophylaxis in Total Joint Arthroplasty

Background

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a well-described complication after total joint arthroplasty which imposes a substantial burden of morbidity and mortality on the individual, as well as cost to the health-care system. This study used a break-even analysis to investigate the cost-effectiveness of pulsed saline lavage (PSL) for PJI prophylaxis after a primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods

An established model was used to calculate the minimum cost-effective absolute risk reduction of PSL for infection prophylaxis after a total joint arthroplasty. Baseline infection rates of TKA and THA and the cost of a revision surgery for PJI were derived from the literature while the cost of PSL implementation was obtained from institutional data.

Results

PSL is cost-effective at an initial infection rate of 1.10%, revision costs of $32,132 for TKA PJI, and a protocol cost of $38.28 if it reduces infection rates by 0.12% or prevents infection in 1 out of 839 patients. PSL is cost-effective at an initial infection rate of 1.63% and a revision cost of $39,713 for THA PJI if it reduces infection rates by 0.10% or prevents infection in 1 out of 1037 patients. The absolute risk reduction needed for economic viability did not change with varying baseline infection rates and did not exceed 0.38% for infection treatment costs as low as $10,000 and remained less than 0.47% even if PSL cost was as high as $150.

Conclusions

The use of PSL is a cost-effective protocol for PJI prophylaxis after TKAs and THAs.