Exploring the link between poor oral hygiene and mesh infection after hernia repair: a systematic review and proposed best practices

BACKGROUND

There is a reasonable body of evidence around oral/dental health and implant infection in orthopaedic and cardiovascular surgery. Another large area of surgical practice associated with a permanent implant is mesh hernia repair. This study aimed to review the evidence around oral/dental health and mesh infection.

METHODS

The research protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022334530). A systematic review of the literature was undertaken according to the PRISMA 2020 statement. The initial search identified 582 publications. A further four papers were identified from references. After a review by title and abstract, 40 papers were read in full text. Fourteen publications were included in the final review, and a total of 47,486 patients were included.

RESULTS

There is no published evidence investigating the state of oral hygiene/health and the risk of mesh infection or other infections in hernia surgery. Improvement in oral hygiene/health can reduce surgical site infection and implant infection in colorectal, gastric, liver, orthopaedic and cardiovascular surgery. Poor oral hygiene/health is associated with a large increase in oral bacteria and bacteraemia in everyday activities such as when chewing or brushing teeth. Antibiotic prophylaxis does not appear to be necessary before invasive dental care in patients with an implant.

CONCLUSION

Good oral hygiene and oral health is a strong public health message. The effect of poor oral hygiene on mesh infection and other complications of mesh hernia repair is unknown. While research is clearly needed in this area, extrapolating from evidence in other areas of surgery where implants are used, good oral hygiene/health should be encouraged amongst hernia patients both prior to and after their surgery.

Dental Screening in Elective Total Joint Arthroplasty: Risk Factors for Failure

BACKGROUND

Active dental infection at the time of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) or in the acute postoperative period following TJA is thought to increase the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Many surgeons recommend preoperative dental screening. This study aimed to identify how many elective TJA patients failed preoperative dental screening and what patient risk factors were associated with failure.

METHODS

A consecutive series of elective, primary TJA was reviewed from 8/1/2016 to 8/1/2017. We studied 511 operations in 511 patients. All patients were referred for preoperative dental screening per protocol. Dental screening failure was defined as required dental intervention by the dentist. Screening failure rate was calculated for and logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between odds of screening failure and patient demographic data.

RESULTS

In 94 of the 511 total cases (18.5%), patients failed dental screening and required dental procedures prior to TJA. Reasons for failure included tooth extractions, root canals, abscess drainage, and carious lesions requiring filling. Patient characteristics associated with failed dental screening included male gender (odds ratio 1.56, 95% confidence interval 1.0006-2.468, P = .047) and current smoker (odds ratio 3.6, 95% confidence interval 1.650-7.927, P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Universal dental screening prior to primary TJA resulted in 18.5% of patients needing an invasive dental intervention. Universal dental screening results in extra cost and time for patients and providers. Although male gender and active smoking were associated with increased odds of requiring an invasive dental procedure, more work is needed to develop targeted screening to improve perioperative workflow and limit unnecessary dental evaluations for patients.

Is there a Role for Antibiotic Prophylaxis Prior to Dental Procedures in Patients with Total Joint Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background: The indication of prophylactic antibiotics prior to dental procedures for non-infected causes in order to reduce the risk of haematogenous periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains as controversial. We performed a systematic review of the literature assessing the relationship between PJI and invasive dental procedures and whether there is evidence to support the use of antibiotic prophylaxis. Methods: This review was conducted in accordance with the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for studies focusing on dental procedures after TJA, reporting on PJI as an outcome. The methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale for case-control and cohort studies and by the tool proposed by Murad et al. for observational studies. Results: Our systematic literature review yielded 90 individual studies, of which 9 met the inclusion criteria. The overall infection rate ranged from 0.26% to 2.12%. Of these, cases associated with a dental procedure ranged from 0% to 15.9%. Five of the studies described cases in which antibiotic prophylaxis was administered; however, no clear algorithm regarding type and dosage of antibiotic was mentioned. When assessing the methodological quality of the evidence, all studies had an overall low to moderate quality. Conclusion: The current systematic review, mostly composed of low-quality studies, suggests that there is no direct evidence to indicate prophylactic antibiotics prior to dental procedures in patients with TJA. In line with the current guidelines, no prophylaxis should be used on interventions for non-infected causes, except for occasional unusual situations, which can then be judged individually.