Cargando…

Early Infection Following Arthroplasty – Are Patients Protected?

OBJECTIVE: Prophylactic antibiotics significantly reduce prosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates after hip and knee arthroplasty. However, the rise of antibiotic resistance has raised concern over the adequacy of conventional prophylaxis. This study aimed to identify organisms causing early PJI in hi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Young, Simon W, Zhu, Mark, Ravi, Saiprasad, Luey, Chris
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4968331/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967116S00093
_version_ 1782445644096471040
author Young, Simon W
Zhu, Mark
Ravi, Saiprasad
Luey, Chris
author_facet Young, Simon W
Zhu, Mark
Ravi, Saiprasad
Luey, Chris
author_sort Young, Simon W
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Prophylactic antibiotics significantly reduce prosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates after hip and knee arthroplasty. However, the rise of antibiotic resistance has raised concern over the adequacy of conventional prophylaxis. This study aimed to identify organisms causing early PJI in hip and knee arthroplasties and their sensitivity to current prophylactic antibiotics. METHOD: We performed a multicentre audit of 4009 primary hip and knee arthroplasties (1852 hips and 2157 knees) at three tertiary referral hospitals. PJIs were identified according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) definition and all patients were followed for two years. For patients with confirmed PJIs, causative bacteria and their antibiotic sensitivities were identified. RESULTS: Thirty-five PJI cases in total were identified in the follow-up period of two years, consisting of 13 hips and 22 knees. The overall definite prosthetic joint infection rate was 0.87% (0.7% for hips, 1.0% for knees). 51.4% of PJIs occurred within the first 6 weeks, 62.9% within the first 3 months and 82.9% during the first year. Ninety-six percent (96%) of patients were given cefazolin as prophylaxis. Thirty-four percent (34%) of patients were infected with Coagulase-negative staphylococci, which were the most common infective organisms. 91.7% of these organisms were resistant to cefazolin. Twenty-five percent (25%) of patients were infected with Staphylococcus aureus, 9.1% of which were methicillin resistant. Overall, 58% of organisms were resistant to cefazolin. Sixty percent (60%) of patients who were treated with cefazolin and had available sensitivities for infective organism(s) were infected with cefazolin-resistant organisms. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of bacteria causing early PJI are resistant to the antibiotic prophylaxis given at the time of surgery. Whilst all the organisms cultured were sensitive to vancomycin, concerns regarding antibiotic stewardship remain and there is insufficient evidence to justify its routine use. However, the choice of empiric antibiotic when treating PJI in the early post-operative period should take into account resistance profiles.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4968331
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49683312016-08-11 Early Infection Following Arthroplasty – Are Patients Protected? Young, Simon W Zhu, Mark Ravi, Saiprasad Luey, Chris Orthop J Sports Med Article OBJECTIVE: Prophylactic antibiotics significantly reduce prosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates after hip and knee arthroplasty. However, the rise of antibiotic resistance has raised concern over the adequacy of conventional prophylaxis. This study aimed to identify organisms causing early PJI in hip and knee arthroplasties and their sensitivity to current prophylactic antibiotics. METHOD: We performed a multicentre audit of 4009 primary hip and knee arthroplasties (1852 hips and 2157 knees) at three tertiary referral hospitals. PJIs were identified according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) definition and all patients were followed for two years. For patients with confirmed PJIs, causative bacteria and their antibiotic sensitivities were identified. RESULTS: Thirty-five PJI cases in total were identified in the follow-up period of two years, consisting of 13 hips and 22 knees. The overall definite prosthetic joint infection rate was 0.87% (0.7% for hips, 1.0% for knees). 51.4% of PJIs occurred within the first 6 weeks, 62.9% within the first 3 months and 82.9% during the first year. Ninety-six percent (96%) of patients were given cefazolin as prophylaxis. Thirty-four percent (34%) of patients were infected with Coagulase-negative staphylococci, which were the most common infective organisms. 91.7% of these organisms were resistant to cefazolin. Twenty-five percent (25%) of patients were infected with Staphylococcus aureus, 9.1% of which were methicillin resistant. Overall, 58% of organisms were resistant to cefazolin. Sixty percent (60%) of patients who were treated with cefazolin and had available sensitivities for infective organism(s) were infected with cefazolin-resistant organisms. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of bacteria causing early PJI are resistant to the antibiotic prophylaxis given at the time of surgery. Whilst all the organisms cultured were sensitive to vancomycin, concerns regarding antibiotic stewardship remain and there is insufficient evidence to justify its routine use. However, the choice of empiric antibiotic when treating PJI in the early post-operative period should take into account resistance profiles. SAGE Publications 2016-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC4968331/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967116S00093 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This open-access article is published and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - No Derivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits the noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction of the article in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this article without the permission of the Author(s). For reprints and permission queries, please visit SAGE’s Web site at http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav.
spellingShingle Article
Young, Simon W
Zhu, Mark
Ravi, Saiprasad
Luey, Chris
Early Infection Following Arthroplasty – Are Patients Protected?
title Early Infection Following Arthroplasty – Are Patients Protected?
title_full Early Infection Following Arthroplasty – Are Patients Protected?
title_fullStr Early Infection Following Arthroplasty – Are Patients Protected?
title_full_unstemmed Early Infection Following Arthroplasty – Are Patients Protected?
title_short Early Infection Following Arthroplasty – Are Patients Protected?
title_sort early infection following arthroplasty – are patients protected?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4968331/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967116S00093
work_keys_str_mv AT youngsimonw earlyinfectionfollowingarthroplastyarepatientsprotected
AT zhumark earlyinfectionfollowingarthroplastyarepatientsprotected
AT ravisaiprasad earlyinfectionfollowingarthroplastyarepatientsprotected
AT lueychris earlyinfectionfollowingarthroplastyarepatientsprotected