Oral Bacteremia as a Cause of Prosthesis Failure in Patients With Joint Replacements

Capturing orthopaedic surgical site infection data and assessing dental recommendations with respect to total joint arthroplasty

Greater documentation of patient history and clinical course is crucial for identifying factors that can influence surgical outcomes. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have already begun public reporting of hospital data on readmission, complication, and infection rates and will soon launch a website to make physician-specific outcomes data public. The orthopaedic community has the opportunity to lead the way in ensuring that adequate and accurate data is collected to facilitate appropriate comparisons that are based on patients' true risk of complications and the complexity of treatment. Several studies have reported a link between oral pathogens and periprosthetic infection, although it remains unclear whether organisms unique to dental tissues are also present in osteoarthritic joints and tissues affected by periprosthetic joint infection. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the American Dental Association are aware of these concerns and have created guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in patients who have undergone total hip or knee arthroplasty and require high-risk dental procedures. Because these guidelines have received considerable criticism, recommendations that are based on scientific and case-controlled clinical studies and provide effective guidance on this important subject are needed.

Acute Hematogenous Infection of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty by Oral Bacteria in a Patient without a History of Dental Procedures: Case Report

The risk of periprosthetic joint infection from hematogenous bacterial seeding is increased in patients undergoing dental procedures that facilitate the development of bacteremia.

We herein report the case of a patient without a history of dental procedures who suffered from an acute metastatic infection of a hip prosthesis by the oral bacterium Streptococcus mutans 18 months after undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty. The patient was successfully treated by two-stage revision surgery.

It is important to realize that the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis against joint infections has not yet been convincingly proven. As a result, optimal dental hygiene and regular dental visits may be more important than antibiotic prophylaxis for maintaining joint health. Therefore, orthopedic surgeons should educate patients with joint prostheses about good oral health.

Perioperative, postoperative, and prophylactic use of antibiotics in alloplastic total temporomandibular joint replacement surgery: a survey and preliminary guidelines

PURPOSE

In 2009, the American Academy Of Orthopedic Surgeons recommended lifelong prophylaxis after orthopedic total joint replacement (TJR) before these patients undergo dental, aerodigestive, genitourinary (GU), and gastrointestinal (GI) procedures. Because oral and maxillofacial surgeons worldwide are implanting alloplastic total temporomandibular joint replacements (TMJ TJRs), it appeared reasonable to survey these surgeons to obtain data that might shed some light, not only on this issue, but also to obtain some data to begin to develop preliminary guidelines for the peri- and postoperative use of antibiotics for TMJ TJR using these results and the orthopedic data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 35 surgeons worldwide, members of either the TMJ Concepts or Biomet Microfixation online networks were e-mailed a standard questionnaire surveying their perioperative, postoperative, and prophylactic use of antibiotics for their TMJ TJR cases.

RESULTS

Of the 35 surgeons, 26 (74.2%) from 8 different countries responded. A total of 2,476 cases (3,368 joints) were retrospectively surveyed. Of the responding surgeons, 96.2% used, in order of frequency, cefazolin, clindamycin, cephalosporin, or penicillin-based antibiotics in the perioperative period and continued their use for a mean of 7 days (range 5 to 14) postoperatively. Also, 46.2% soaked the TJR components either in the perioperative antibiotic or in vancomycin, poviodine, gentamycin, or peroxide before implantation. In addition, 61.5% irrigated the wounds after device implantation with bacitracin, vancomycin, poviodine, peroxide, or the perioperative antibiotic. These surgeons reported that 51 joints (1.51%) had become infected within a mean of 6 months (range 2 weeks to 12 years) postoperatively. A total of 32 devices (0.95%) required removal and/or replacement. In cases in which the organisms were isolated, the organisms commonly associated with biofilm infection of TJR devices, Staphylococcus aureus, S epidermidis, Peptostreptococcus, and Pseudamonas aeruginosa, were cultured. In only 1 joint (0.003%) was there a suggestion of an association with an invasive dental/aerodigestive, GU/GI procedure. Regarding prophylaxis after TMJ TJRs and before dental/aerodigestive, GU, or GI procedures, 53.8% of the respondents reported that they provided prophylaxis. Of these, 1 recommended doing this for 6 months and 4 for 2 years, such as has been the American Dental Association/American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons recommendation since 2003; and 9 reported they believe these TMJ TJR patients should have lifetime antibiotic prophylaxis before invasive dental/aerodigestive, GU, or GI procedures.

CONCLUSION

The evidence provided from the present small study survey and a review of the orthopedic data could provide the opportunity to develop guidelines for the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative antibiotic management for TMJ TJRs and spur additional research into this important area of patient management.

Should patients with hip joint prosthesis receive antibiotic prophylaxis before dental treatment?

The safety committee of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) recommended in 2009 that clinicians should consider antibiotic prophylaxis for all patients with total joint replacement before any invasive procedure that may cause bacteremia. This has aroused confusion and anger among dentists asking for the evidence. The present review deals with different aspects of the rationale for this recommendation giving attention to views both in favor of and against it.