Cargando…

A comparison of the microbiology profile for periprosthetic joint infection of knee arthroplasty and lower-limb endoprostheses in tumour surgery

Aims: this study compared the patient and microbiological profile of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) for patients treated with two-stage revision for knee arthroplasty with that of lower-limb endoprostheses for oncological resection. Patient and methods: a total of 118 patients were treated with tw...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McCulloch, Robert A., Adlan, Amirul, Jenkins, Neil, Parry, Michael, Stevenson, Jonathan D., Jeys, Lee
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Copernicus GmbH 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9399934/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36032799
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/jbji-7-177-2022
_version_ 1784772639121735680
author McCulloch, Robert A.
Adlan, Amirul
Jenkins, Neil
Parry, Michael
Stevenson, Jonathan D.
Jeys, Lee
author_facet McCulloch, Robert A.
Adlan, Amirul
Jenkins, Neil
Parry, Michael
Stevenson, Jonathan D.
Jeys, Lee
author_sort McCulloch, Robert A.
collection PubMed
description Aims: this study compared the patient and microbiological profile of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) for patients treated with two-stage revision for knee arthroplasty with that of lower-limb endoprostheses for oncological resection. Patient and methods: a total of 118 patients were treated with two-stage revision surgery for infected knee arthroplasty and lower-limb endoprostheses between 1999 and 2019. A total of 74 patients had two-stage revision for PJI of knee arthroplasty, and 44 had two-stage revision of oncology knee endoprostheses. There were 68 men and 50 women. The mean ages of the arthroplasty and oncology cohorts were 70.2 years (range of 50–89) and 36.1 years (range of 12–78) respectively ( [Formula: see text] .01). Patient host and extremity criteria were categorized according to the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) host and extremity staging system. The patient microbiological culture, the incidence of polymicrobial infection, and multidrug resistance (MDR) were analysed and recorded. Results: polymicrobial infection was reported in 16 % (12 patients) of knee arthroplasty PJI cases and in 14.5 % (8 patients) of endoprostheses PJI cases ( [Formula: see text] .783). There was a significantly higher incidence of MDR in endoprostheses PJI, isolated in 36.4 % of cultures, compared with knee arthroplasty PJI (17.2 %, [Formula: see text] .01). Gram-positive organisms were isolated in more than 80 % of cultures from both cohorts. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) was the most common Gram-positive organism, and Escherichia coli was the most common Gram-negative organism in both groups. According to the MSIS staging system, the host and extremity grades of the oncology PJI cohort were significantly worse than those for the arthroplasty PJI cohort ( [Formula: see text] .05). Conclusion: empirical antibiotic prophylaxis against PJI in orthopaedic oncology is based upon PJI in arthroplasty, despite oncology patients presenting with worse host and extremity staging. CoNS was the most common infective organism in both groups; however, pathogens showing MDR were significantly more prevalent in oncological PJI of the knee. Therefore, empirical broad-spectrum treatment is recommended in oncological patients following revision surgery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9399934
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Copernicus GmbH
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93999342022-08-25 A comparison of the microbiology profile for periprosthetic joint infection of knee arthroplasty and lower-limb endoprostheses in tumour surgery McCulloch, Robert A. Adlan, Amirul Jenkins, Neil Parry, Michael Stevenson, Jonathan D. Jeys, Lee J Bone Jt Infect Original Full-Length Article Aims: this study compared the patient and microbiological profile of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) for patients treated with two-stage revision for knee arthroplasty with that of lower-limb endoprostheses for oncological resection. Patient and methods: a total of 118 patients were treated with two-stage revision surgery for infected knee arthroplasty and lower-limb endoprostheses between 1999 and 2019. A total of 74 patients had two-stage revision for PJI of knee arthroplasty, and 44 had two-stage revision of oncology knee endoprostheses. There were 68 men and 50 women. The mean ages of the arthroplasty and oncology cohorts were 70.2 years (range of 50–89) and 36.1 years (range of 12–78) respectively ( [Formula: see text] .01). Patient host and extremity criteria were categorized according to the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) host and extremity staging system. The patient microbiological culture, the incidence of polymicrobial infection, and multidrug resistance (MDR) were analysed and recorded. Results: polymicrobial infection was reported in 16 % (12 patients) of knee arthroplasty PJI cases and in 14.5 % (8 patients) of endoprostheses PJI cases ( [Formula: see text] .783). There was a significantly higher incidence of MDR in endoprostheses PJI, isolated in 36.4 % of cultures, compared with knee arthroplasty PJI (17.2 %, [Formula: see text] .01). Gram-positive organisms were isolated in more than 80 % of cultures from both cohorts. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) was the most common Gram-positive organism, and Escherichia coli was the most common Gram-negative organism in both groups. According to the MSIS staging system, the host and extremity grades of the oncology PJI cohort were significantly worse than those for the arthroplasty PJI cohort ( [Formula: see text] .05). Conclusion: empirical antibiotic prophylaxis against PJI in orthopaedic oncology is based upon PJI in arthroplasty, despite oncology patients presenting with worse host and extremity staging. CoNS was the most common infective organism in both groups; however, pathogens showing MDR were significantly more prevalent in oncological PJI of the knee. Therefore, empirical broad-spectrum treatment is recommended in oncological patients following revision surgery. Copernicus GmbH 2022-08-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9399934/ /pubmed/36032799 http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/jbji-7-177-2022 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Robert A. McCulloch et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Original Full-Length Article
McCulloch, Robert A.
Adlan, Amirul
Jenkins, Neil
Parry, Michael
Stevenson, Jonathan D.
Jeys, Lee
A comparison of the microbiology profile for periprosthetic joint infection of knee arthroplasty and lower-limb endoprostheses in tumour surgery
title A comparison of the microbiology profile for periprosthetic joint infection of knee arthroplasty and lower-limb endoprostheses in tumour surgery
title_full A comparison of the microbiology profile for periprosthetic joint infection of knee arthroplasty and lower-limb endoprostheses in tumour surgery
title_fullStr A comparison of the microbiology profile for periprosthetic joint infection of knee arthroplasty and lower-limb endoprostheses in tumour surgery
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of the microbiology profile for periprosthetic joint infection of knee arthroplasty and lower-limb endoprostheses in tumour surgery
title_short A comparison of the microbiology profile for periprosthetic joint infection of knee arthroplasty and lower-limb endoprostheses in tumour surgery
title_sort comparison of the microbiology profile for periprosthetic joint infection of knee arthroplasty and lower-limb endoprostheses in tumour surgery
topic Original Full-Length Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9399934/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36032799
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/jbji-7-177-2022
work_keys_str_mv AT mccullochroberta acomparisonofthemicrobiologyprofileforperiprostheticjointinfectionofkneearthroplastyandlowerlimbendoprosthesesintumoursurgery
AT adlanamirul acomparisonofthemicrobiologyprofileforperiprostheticjointinfectionofkneearthroplastyandlowerlimbendoprosthesesintumoursurgery
AT jenkinsneil acomparisonofthemicrobiologyprofileforperiprostheticjointinfectionofkneearthroplastyandlowerlimbendoprosthesesintumoursurgery
AT parrymichael acomparisonofthemicrobiologyprofileforperiprostheticjointinfectionofkneearthroplastyandlowerlimbendoprosthesesintumoursurgery
AT stevensonjonathand acomparisonofthemicrobiologyprofileforperiprostheticjointinfectionofkneearthroplastyandlowerlimbendoprosthesesintumoursurgery
AT jeyslee acomparisonofthemicrobiologyprofileforperiprostheticjointinfectionofkneearthroplastyandlowerlimbendoprosthesesintumoursurgery
AT mccullochroberta comparisonofthemicrobiologyprofileforperiprostheticjointinfectionofkneearthroplastyandlowerlimbendoprosthesesintumoursurgery
AT adlanamirul comparisonofthemicrobiologyprofileforperiprostheticjointinfectionofkneearthroplastyandlowerlimbendoprosthesesintumoursurgery
AT jenkinsneil comparisonofthemicrobiologyprofileforperiprostheticjointinfectionofkneearthroplastyandlowerlimbendoprosthesesintumoursurgery
AT parrymichael comparisonofthemicrobiologyprofileforperiprostheticjointinfectionofkneearthroplastyandlowerlimbendoprosthesesintumoursurgery
AT stevensonjonathand comparisonofthemicrobiologyprofileforperiprostheticjointinfectionofkneearthroplastyandlowerlimbendoprosthesesintumoursurgery
AT jeyslee comparisonofthemicrobiologyprofileforperiprostheticjointinfectionofkneearthroplastyandlowerlimbendoprosthesesintumoursurgery