Antiseptic Irrigation Solutions Used in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Critical Analysis Review

Effects of antiseptic irrigation solutions on osseointegration in a cementless tibial implantation mouse model

Despite the success of standard antiseptic irrigation solutions in reducing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates, there is still a need for more effective solutions. Synergistic use of povidone-iodine (PI) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) has shown promising results; however, the optimal solution concentration balancing bactericidal activity and osseointegration remains unknown. This study aims to evaluate the impact of these antiseptic irrigation solutions on osseointegration and the bone-implant interface strength in vivo. Forty C57BL/6 mice underwent bilateral tibial implantation surgery and were randomly allocated into three groups receiving 0.3% PI, 10% PI mixed with 3% H2O2, or saline as irrigation solutions intraoperatively. Assessments were performed on postoperative Days 1 and 28, including plain radiographs, microcomputed tomography (microCT) evaluation, histological analysis, immunohistochemistry, and biomechanical pull-out testing. No wound complications were observed. MicroCT scans revealed no differences in peri-implant trabecular bone parameters. Biomechanical pull-out testing showed no differences in the bone-implant interface strength across groups. Histological analysis indicated no differences in bone and bone marrow percentage areas among treatment groups. Immunohistochemical analysis demonstrated no differences among groups in peri-implant osteocalcin, osterix, or endomucin-positive cells. In conclusion, using either antiseptic irrigation solution showed no differences in osseointegration parameters compared to the control group, demonstrating safety and the absence of toxicity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dilute 0.3% povidone-iodine and a 1:1 combination of 10% povidone-iodine mixed with 3% hydrogen peroxide can be safely used during primary and revision total joint arthroplasty without compromising osseointegration or causing wound complications.

Efficacy of Commercially Available Irrigation Solutions on Removal of Staphylococcus Aureus and Biofilm From Porous Titanium Implants: An In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection remains a major problem. The bactericidal efficacy of commercial irrigation solutions for the treatment of infection is not well established in the presence of porous titanium (Ti) implants. This study compared the in vitro efficacy of five irrigation solutions on infected three-dimensional-printed porous Ti discs.

METHODS

Titanium discs (2 × 4 mm, 400, 700, and 1,000 μm) were infected with S. aureus (1 × 106 colony-forming unit/mL) and incubated for 3 hours or 3 days to create acute or chronic infection with biofilm. Discs were irrigated with saline, antibiotic, or antiseptic solutions, then repeatedly sonicated. Sonicates were cultured for bacterial quantification. Statistical analyses were performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey-Kramer post hoc testing (P < .05 significance). Biofilms were visualized by scanning electron microscopy.

RESULTS

Saline irrigation was ineffective in both groups. In acute infections with 400 μm pores, differences were found with saline versus solution #3 (P = .015) and #4 (P = .015). Solution #4 had the lowest bacterial counts for all pore sizes. For biofilm, irrigation with saline, solutions #1, #2, and #3 inadequately cleared bacteria in all pore sizes. Lower remaining concentrations were observed in #4 with 400μm pores compared to saline (P = .06) and #2 (P = .039). The scanning electron microscopy showed a reduction of biofilm in samples washed with #4.

CONCLUSIONS

Irrigation of infected porous Ti discs with saline, solutions #1 and #2 failed to reduce the bacterial load. The 400 μm discs consistently had more bacteria despite irrigation, highlighting the difficulty of removing bacteria from small pores. Solutions #3 and #4 reduced bacteria acutely, but only #4 demonstrated efficacy in clearing biofilm compared to saline. These results should be considered when treating periprosthetic joint infection in the presence of porous components and the potential presence of biofilm.

The Effect of Povidone-Iodine Irrigation on the Efficacy of Antibiotic Cement In Vitro

Povidone-iodine is a common antiseptic demonstrating success in reducing infection rates in primary arthroplasty; however, recent data suggest that its use in revision arthroplasty may increase infection rates. This study evaluated the effect of povidone-iodine solution on antibiotic cement and investigated the connection between povidone-iodine and increased infection rates in revision arthroplasty. Sixty antibiotic cement samples (ACSs) were formed using gentamicin-impregnated cement. The ACSs were divided into three groups: group A (n=20) was subject to a 3-minute povidone-iodine soak followed by a saline rinse; group B (n=20) underwent a 3-minute saline soak; and group C (n=20) underwent only a saline rinse. The antimicrobial activity of the samples was tested using a Kirby-Bauer-like assay using Staphylococcus epidermidis. The zone of inhibition (ZOI) was measured every 24 hours for 7 days. All groups possessed the greatest antimicrobial activity at 24 hours. Group C displayed a mass-corrected ZOI of 395.2 mm/g, which was statistically greater than the group B ZOI (313.2 mm/g, P<.05) but not the group A ZOI (346.5 mm/g, P>.05). All groups demonstrated a decrease in antimicrobial activity at 48 through 96 hours, with no significant difference at any time point. Prolonged soaking of antibiotic cement in a povidone-iodine or saline solution results in elution of the antibiotic into the irrigation solution, blunting initial antibiotic concentration. When using antibiotic cement, antiseptic soaks or irrigation should be focused prior to cementation. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(1):10-14.].

Principles of mechanical and chemical debridement with implant retention

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most common causes of early revision for total hip and knee arthroplasty. Mechanical and chemical debridement typically referred to as debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) can be a successful technique to eradicate PJI in acute postoperative or acute hematogenous infections. This review will focus specifically on the indications, techniques, and outcomes of DAIR.

DISCUSSION

The success of mechanical and chemical debridement, or a DAIR operation, is reliant on a combination of appropriate patient selection and meticulous technique. There are many technical considerations to take into consideration. One of the most important factors in the success of the DAIR procedure is the adequacy of mechanical debridement. Techniques are surgeon-specific and perhaps contribute to the large variability in the literature on the success of DAIR. Factors that have been shown to be associated with success include the exchange of modular components, performing the procedure within seven days or less of symptom onset, and possibly adjunctive rifampin or fluoroquinolone therapy, though this remains controversial. Factors that have been associated with failure include rheumatoid arthritis, age greater than 80 years, male sex, chronic renal failure, liver cirrhosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

CONCLUSIONS

DAIR is an effective treatment option for the management of an acute postoperative or hematogenous PJI in the appropriately selected patient with well-fixed implants.