Despite the routine use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, postoperative infection following fracture surgery remains a persistent issue with substantial morbidity. The use of additional local antibiotic prophylaxis may have a protective effect and some orthopaedic surgeons have adopted their use in recent years, despite limited evidence of its beneficial effect. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the current literature regarding the effect of prophylactic local antibiotics on the rate of infection in fracture surgery in both open and closed fractures. A comprehensive search of Medline, EMBASE, and PubMed was performed. Cohort studies were eligible if they investigated the effect on infection rate of additional local antibiotic prophylaxis compared with systemic prophylaxis alone following fracture surgery. The data were pooled in a meta-analysis. In total, four randomized controlled trials and 11 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 6161 fractures from various anatomical locations were eligible for inclusion. The majority of the included studies were Level 3 evidence and had a moderate risk of bias. When all fractures were pooled, the risk of infection was significantly reduced when local antibiotics were applied compared with the control group receiving systemic prophylaxis only (OR = 0.39; 95%CI: 0.26 to 0.53, P < 0.001). In particular, there was a significant reduction in deep infections (OR = 0.59; 95%CI: 0.38 to 0.91, P = 0.017). The beneficial effect of local antibiotics for preventing total infection was seen in both open fractures (OR = 0.35; 95%CI: 0.23 to 0.53, P < 0.001) and closed fractures (OR = 0.58; 95%CI: 0.35 to 0.95, P = 0.029) when analyzed separately. This meta-analysis suggests a significant risk reduction for postoperative infection following fracture surgery when local antibiotics were added to standard systemic prophylaxis, with a protective effect present in both open and closed fractures

Culture negative prosthetic joint infections (PJI) still remain an issue even the advantages in PJI diagnosis. This is the reason why some orthopedic surgeons fear to use preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis when a PJI is suspected. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the influence of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in intraoperative cultures. An enhanced diagnostic protocol for PJI (Zimmerli criteria) was used for the inclusion criteria in order to collect all PJI accounted in a University Hospital. Patients were prospectively randomized in two groups. The control group received the classical preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. The study group did not receive prophylaxis prior to surgery. There were 14 patients in each group. They correspond to 13 infections of total hip arthroplasty (THA), 12 infections of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and 3 reverse shoulder prosthesis (RSA) infections. There were 10 patients in the study group and 10 patients in the control group with at least one positive microbiological criterion. There were 8 patients in each group with culture negative PJI (p>0.05). Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis does not affect intraoperative cultures in suspected or confirmed PJI. Therefore it is essential to deliver antibiotic prophylaxis in any patient in which prosthesis is to be implanted in order to protect the prosthesis from infection

Purpose. Antibiotic prophylaxis plays an important role in minimizing surgical site infections as well as other nosocomial peri-operative infections in orthopaedic trauma patients. Pre-operative prophylaxis has been shown to be efficacious, but the role and duration of post-operative prophylaxis remains controversial. The goal of this study was to assess whether patients receive their antibiotic prophylaxis as prescribed. What dose and duration of antibiotics are typically ordered, what patients actually receive, and factors causing the ordered antibiotic regime to be altered were also investigated. This study did not investigate infection rates or the efficacy of various antibiotic prophylactic regimes. Method. This study presents data collected through a retrospective chart review of 205 patients treated surgically for a closed fracture at one institution. A national survey was also distributed to all surgeon members of the Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society (COTS) concerning antibiotic prophylaxis in the setting of surgical treatment for closed fractures. Results. Ninety three percent (179/193) of patients received an appropriate pre-operative dose, while less than 32% (58/181) of patients received their post-operative antibiotics as ordered. The most common stated reason for patients not receiving their post-operative antibiotics as ordered was patients being discharged before completing three post-op doses. There was a 70% (39/56) response rate to the survey sent to COTS surgeons. A single dose of a first-generation cephalosporin pre-operatively followed by three doses post-operatively is the most common practice amongst orthopaedic trauma surgeons across Canada, but several surgeons use only pre-operative prophylaxis. Conclusion. Adherence to multi-dose post-operative antibiotic regimens is poor. Meta-analyses have failed to demonstrate the superiority of multi-dose regimens over single-dose prophylaxis. Single-dose pre-operative antibiotic prophylaxis may be a reasonable choice for most orthopedic trauma patients with closed fractures

There is high morbidity and mortality associated with infection following orthopaedic procedures. In accordance to local guidelines, most hospitals follow a set protocol for surgical prophylaxis, which expects a compliance rate of 100%. A new protocol was introduced to the orthopaedic department of a teaching hospital in August 2013, changing from a cephalosporin, with potential C. difficile risk, to teicoplanin and gentamicin, within 30 minutes of incision. Our aim was to audit how well the protocol was followed across 3 different time periods. Data was collected for 3 different time periods following the introduction of the new protocol (August-November 2013, April-May 2014 & November 2014) on the choice of antibiotic. Both elective and trauma cases were included. After each cycle, the data was presented to the orthopaedic surgical and anaesthetic departments to raise awareness and draw attention to the antibiotic prophylaxis posters in theatre. The 1st audit cycle (n=30) indicated that there was 0% compliance with the current protocol and 100% compliance with the previous protocol. The 2nd audit cycle (n=27) indicated that 0% complied with the current protocol, 54% complied with the previous protocol and that there was a combination of both protocols being used in 46% of the patients. Finally the 3rd audit cycle (n=33) indicated a 100% compliance rate in terms of antibiotic choice. However, only 9% were given the appropriate dose according to body weight and within the appropriate time based on the documented evidence. This audit demonstrates the value of auditing and then disseminating the findings to relevant departments to influence practice. Each audit cycle demonstrated a progressive uptake in compliance with the hospital trust's antibiotic prophylaxis policy. The last audit cycle highlighted discrepancy in dosage based on weights; a further intervention will be to provide ideal body weight (IBW) vs dose tables in all orthopaedic theatres to ensure the correct antibiotic dosage is given

Gram-negative organisms are increasingly seen as causative pathogens in orthopaedic fracture surgery, which might necessitate a change in antibiotic prophylaxis protocols. A single-centre retrospective review of antibiogram results from all patients treated for fracture-related infection (FRI) was conducted. Subgroup analysis was undertaken to identify any host, injury or treatment variables predisposed to Gram-negative infection. The bacteriological results of 267 patients who underwent surgical treatment for FRI were analysed. Pathogens were isolated in 216 cases (81%), of which 118 (55%) were Gram-negative infections. Fractures involving the tibia and femur (p=0.007), the presence of soft tissue defect (p=0.003) and bone defects (p=0.001) were associated with an increased risk of developing a Gram- negative FRI. Gram-negative fracture-related infections were associated with injuries experiencing bone loss and those requiring soft tissue reconstruction. It is, therefore, prudent to consider extended Gram-negative directed antimicrobial prophylaxis in these cases to prevent the development of fracture-related infection

Background:. Antibiotic prophylaxis prior to dental and other procedures when patients have joint replacements in situ remains controversial. Recommendations seem to generally be intuitive and not based on any sound scientific evidence. Recently, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons altered their previous standpoint and suggested that orthopaedic surgeons review their current practice of routine prescription of antibiotic prophylaxis. Method:. We conducted an electronic survey of members of the South African Orthopaedic Association to determine the opinion of the average orthopaedic surgeon in South Africa in respect of this prophylaxis. 111 surgeons responded. Results:. 73% of respondents were of the opinion that patients with joint replacements in situ should take antibiotic prophylaxis prior to undergoing any dental procedure. 65% of surgeons were of the opinion that this prophylaxis should be life-long. 59% of surgeons recommended that prophylaxis start before the procedure, 24% at the same time as the procedure. 35% of surgeons recommended prophylaxis with every dental procedure, and 61% only with more invasive procedures. We also show that working in private practice and greater surgical experience increases the likelihood that surgeons will prescribe prophylactic antibiotics prior to dental procedures. Scientific evidence linking bacteraemia from dental procedures with infected prosthetic implants is limited, however 19% of surgeons reported managing an infected implant as a result of dental surgery. Conclusion:. We could find no evidence to substantiate the practice of using antibiotic prophylaxis prior to dental or any other procedures in those patients with joint replacements in situ. Practice in South Africa is at odds with world-wide trends and we would recommend that these patients do not use antibiotic prophylaxis prior to dental and other procedures, except possibly those that may be immune-compromised

Aim. Deep infection following endoprosthetic replacement (EPR) of long bones is a devastating complication occurring in 15% of musculoskeletal tumour patients. The recently published PARITY Trial demonstrated that extending antibiotic prophylaxis from 24 hours to 5 days does not reduce infection rates. However, questions remain about the optimal antibiotic choice and dose. Method. A 23-question multiple-choice questionnaire was designed and piloted through an iterative feedback process until the final version was agreed by all authors. Open and closed-ended questions were used to gather information on practice and Likert-type scale responses were used to grade responses to ascertain surgeon perceptions and preferences. The online survey was sent to all surgeon delegates of the 34th Annual Meeting of the European Musculo-Skeletal Oncology Society in London in October 2022. Results. Amongst 61 respondents, 43 were based in Europe and 18 outside of Europe. The majority (48/61) had been in clinical practice over 11 years. Antibiotic choice. 1st or 2nd generation cephalosporins were the first line choice practiced among 49 (80.3%) of respondents. Of these, 39 responded had a 2nd line protocol for beta-lactam allergy which was most commonly clindamycin (18), vancomycin (11) or a combination of a glycopeptide or clindamycin plus gentamicin (4). Respondents changed their first line regimen for radiotherapy in 6/61, chemotherapy in 8/61 and tumour site in 20/61. Re-dosing. Intraoperative re-dosing intervals of 1st and 2nd generation cephalosporins ranged from 2 to 8 hourly. Re-dosing for blood loss ranged from never to when 2 litres was lost. Of the 47 respondents, 24 said intraoperative re-dosing is always reliably administered. Duration. Six (10%) of 61 respondent routinely cover the intraoperative period only, whereas 30 (49%) give 24 hours, 16 (give 48 hours or longer and 8 continue until surgical drains are removed. 31 of 61 change duration depending on clinical situation. The most common reasons for changing were patient risk factors, soft tissue status and previous radiotherapy. 57/61 surgeons were aware of the PARITY Trial. When these respondents were asked whether they had changed practice based on PARITY, 12 said yes, 24 said no and 21 said they always give 24 hours anyway. Conclusions. Amongst an international cohort of orthopaedic oncology surgeons there was a wide variation in practice. Further research should focus on the optimum choice and re-dosing strategy, which have not been defined

Aim. Alongside debridement and irrigation, soft tissue coverage and osseous stabilization, systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is considered the gold standard in the management of open fractures and considerably reduces the risk of subsequent fracture-related Infections (FRI). The direct application of antibiotics into the surgical field (local antibiotics) has been used for decades as additional prophylaxis in open fractures, although definitive evidence confirming a beneficial effect is scarce. The purpose of the present study was to review the clinical evidence regarding the effect of prophylactic application of local antibiotics in open limb fractures. Method. A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Web-of- Science and Embase. Cohort studies investigating the effect of additional local antibiotic prophylaxis compared to systemic prophylaxis alone in the management of open fractures were included and the data were pooled in a meta-analysis. Results. Eight studies, with a total of 2738 patients were eligible for quantitative synthesis. Six of these studies investigated the effect of antibiotic loaded PMMA beads and two studies evaluated the effect of local antibiotics applied without a carrier. Meta-analysis showed a significantly lower infection rate when local antibiotics were applied (4.7%;94/1996) than in the control group receiving standard systemic prophylaxis alone (16.2%;129/797) (p-value < 0.001) (OR 0.30; 95%CI 0.22–0.40). Conclusions. This meta-analysis suggests a clear risk reduction in FRI if additional local antibiotics are given prophylactically for open limb fractures. However, due to limited quality, heterogeneity and considerable risk of bias, the pooling of data from primary studies has to be interpreted with caution

Aim. Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating and costly complication of total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Use of extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOAP) has become increasingly popular in the United States following a highly publicized study (Inabathula et al) from a single center demonstrating a significant protective effect (81% reduction) against PJI in ‘high-risk’ patients. However, these results have not been reproduced elsewhere and EOAP use directly conflicts with current antibiotic stewardship efforts. In order to study the role of EOAP in PJI prevention, consensus is needed for what defines ‘high-risk’ patients. The revision TJA (rTJA) population is an appropriate group to study due to having a higher incidence of PJI. The purpose of the current study was to rigorously determine which preoperative conditions described by Inabathula et al. (referred to as Inabathula criteria (IBC)) confer a higher rate of PJI in patients undergoing aseptic rTJA. Method. 2,256 patients that underwent aseptic rTJA at a single high-volume institution between 2016–2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics and comorbidities were recorded to determine if they had 1 or more ‘IBC’, a long list of preoperative conditions including autoimmune diseases, active smoking, body mass index (BMI)>35, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Reoperation for PJI at 90-days and 1-year was recorded. Chi-squared or Fischer's exact tests were calculated to determine the association between preoperative presence/absence of IBC and PJI. Multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to determine if specific comorbidities within the IBC individually conferred an increased PJI risk. Results. 1223 patients (54.2%) had at least one IBC condition. IBC-positive patients were more likely to be female, have an increased ASA score, and higher BMI. IBC-positive patients had a significant increase in PJI risk at both 90-days (relative risk (RR)=2.32, p<0.0001) and 1-year (RR=2.14, p=0.002) versus IBC-negative patients. Within IBC-positive patients, every additional IBC condition conferred a 1.8× odds increase for 90-day PJI (p<0.0001), and 1.76× odds increase in 1-year PJI (p<0.0001). Multivariable logistic regression identified active smoking, BMI>35, CKD, and diabetes mellitus as being independently associated with PJI development (p<0.05). Conclusions. Over half of rTJA patients meet IBC and could be eligible to receive EOAP in the United States. However, the specific presence of active smoking, BMI>35, CKD, and diabetes mellitus appear to be responsible for the increased risk of PJI. Prospective studies investigating EOAP use for patients with these specific conditions are urgently needed to prevent unnecessary antibiotic use

Acute postoperative periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication after any hemiarthroplasty (HHA) implanted due to a proximal hip fracture. The growing number of chronic institutionalized geriatric patients (CIGP) colonized with multi-drug resistant bacteria (e.g.: MRSA), not covered by usual antibiotic prophylaxis, has been identified as a risk factor for PJI after HHA. We therefore sought to compare the HHA infection characteristics between non-institutionalized patients (NIP) with proximal hip fractures and CIGP. We investigate (1) the rate of compliance with a new proposed protocol, (2) the acute infection rate, 3) the microbiologic characteristics of the infection, and 4) the success of the new protocol. We gathered clinical, operative and infection data on all patients who underwent HHA due to a proximal femoral fracture in our center, during a 3-year period. We focus in the cases of acute postoperative infection (Zimmerli´s criteria). The new proposed antibiotic prophylaxis is cefazolin except in CIGP in which co-trimoxazole is used. During the study period a total of 385 HHA in 385 patients were performed. In all cases the HHA was performed after a proximal femoral fracture. Overall, 109 patients (28,2%) were CIGP. We found an acute postoperative PJI in 21 out 385 HHA procedures, that is, a global acute infection rate of 5.43%. Ten out 109 (9.17%) CIGP patients resulted infected compared to 11 out 278 (3.9%) non-institutionalized patients (p: 0.049). One or more causative microorganisms were identified in 20/21 (95%) of PJI. Globally the Gram-Negative bacilli group accounted for the majority of the infections (60%). Staphylococus aureus was isolated in 3 cases (8.6%) with only a single MRSA infection. The percentage of polymicrobial infections was 47% (10 out of 21). Co-trimoxazole was used in the prophylaxis in 80.1% of the CIGP. In the infected cases a non-effective drug against the microorganism was used in the prophylaxis in 17 (81%) of the acute infected HHA. We confirm that institutionalized patients are more prone to acute infections after a HHA. Our current strategy of antibiotic prophylaxis has showed to be effective in preventing MRSA PJI in CIGP. However, we found an increased rate of infection due to gram-negative bacilli non-covered by the current antibiotic prophylaxis. According our data an extended antibiotic prophylaxis on gram-negative drug will be proposed to be implemented in CIGP scheduled to a HHA because a proximal femoral fracture

Aim. Open fractures still have a high risk for fracture-related Infection (FRI). The optimal duration of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) for open fractures remains controversial due to heterogeneous guidelines and highly variable prophylactic regimens in clinical practice. In order to provide further evidence with which to support the selection of antibiotic duration for open fracture care, we performed a preclinical evaluation in a contaminated rabbit fracture model. Method. A complete humeral osteotomy in 18 rabbits was fixed with a 7-hole-LCP and inoculated with Staphylococcus aureus (2×106 colony forming units, CFU per inoculum). This inoculum was previously shown to result in a 100% infection rate in the absence of any antibiotic prophylaxis. Cefuroxime was administered intravenously in a weight adjusted dosage equivalent to human medicine (18.75 mg/kg) as a single shot only, for 24 hours (every 8 hours) and for 72 hours (every 8 hours) in separate groups of rabbits (n=6 per group). Infection rate per group was assessed after two weeks by quantitative bacteriological evaluation of soft tissue, bone and implants. Blood samples were taken from rabbits preoperatively and on days 3, 7 and 14 after surgery to measure white blood cell count (WBC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels. Results. Duration of PAP had a significant impact on the success of antibiotic prophylaxis. The single shot regimen completely failed to prevent infection. All samples (soft tissue, implant and bone) from this group displayed high numbers of bacteria. Additionally, abscesses were present in two of six rabbits. The 24-hour regimen showed a reduced infection rate (1 out of 6 rabbits infected), but only the 72-hour course was able to prevent FRI in all animals in our model. After an initial postoperative peak on day three, CRP levels then decreased to baseline (approx. 30 µg/ml) in the 24h-group and 72h-group, but remained significantly higher in the single shot group at day 7 and 14 (p<0.05). Conclusions. When contamination with high bacterial loads is likely (e.g. in an open fracture situation), a 72-hour course of intravenous cefuroxime appears to be superior in preventing FRI compared to a single shot or 24-hour antibiotic regimen. Acknowledgements. This work was funded by AOTrauma

Aim. The current recommendation in Norway is to use four doses of a first-generation cephalosporin (cefazolin or cephalotin) as systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) the day of surgery in primary joint arthroplasty. Due to shortage of supply, scientific development, changed courses of treatment and improved antibiotic stewardship, this recommendation has been disputed. We therefore wanted to assess if one dose of SAP was non-inferior to four doses in preventing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in primary joint arthroplasty. Method. We included patients with primary hip- and knee arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register for the period 2005-2023. We included the most used SAPs (cephalotin, cefazolin, cefuroxime, cloxacillin and clindamycin), administered as the only SAP in 1-4 doses, starting preoperatively. Risk of revision (Hazard rate ratio; HRR) for PJI was estimated by Cox regression analyses with adjustment for sex, age, ASA class, duration of surgery, reason for- and type of arthroplasty, and year of primary arthroplasty. The outcome was 1-year reoperation or revision for PJI. Non-inferiority margins were calculated for 1, 2 and 3 doses versus reference of 4 doses of SAP at the day of surgery, against a predetermined limit of 15% increased risk of PJI. Results. In total 274,188 primary arthroplasties (total hip 133,985, hemi hip 51,442, and total knee 88,761) were included. Of these primary arthroplasties, 2,996 (1.1%) had subsequent revisions for PJI during the first postoperative year. One dose of SAP was given in 9,603 arthroplasties, two doses in 10,068, three doses in 18,351, and four doses in 236,166 arthroplasties. With the recommended four doses as reference, the HRR (95% CI) for 1-year revision for infection was 0.9 (0.7-1.1) for one dose, 1.0 (0.8-1.2) for two doses, and 0.9 (0.8-1.1) for three doses. The corresponding adjusted 1-year revision incidences for PJI was 0.9 (0.7-1.1), 1.0 (0.8-1.2), 0.9 (0. 8-1.1) and 1.0 (1.0-1.1) for one, two, three and four doses respectively, and less than four doses was found to be non-inferior. Conclusions. One preoperative dose of SAP in primary joint arthroplasty surgery seems to be non-inferior to the current recommendation of four doses of a first-generation cephalosporin as PJI-prophylaxis. This finding may simplify the course of treatment for arthroplasty patients, save costs, and improve antibiotic stewardship

Aim. Antibiotic prophylaxis is critical for the prevention of fracture related infection (FRI) in trauma patients, particularly those with open wounds. Administration of prophylactic antibiotics prior to arrival at the hospital (e.g. by paramedics) may reduce intraoperative bacterial load and has been recommended; however scientific evidence for pre-hospital administration is scarce. Methods. The contaminated rabbit humeral osteotomy model of Arens was modified to resemble the sequence of events in open fractures. In an initial surgery representing the “accident”, a 2mm mid-diaphyseal hole was created in the humerus and the wound was contaminated with a clinical Staphylococcus aureus strain (mean 1.6×106 Colony Forming Units, CFU). The animals were allowed recover for 4 hours mimicking the period from trauma to debridement. At this time, a second procedure was performed in order to debride and irrigate the wound, and to fix a complete osteotomy that was made through the initial defect. Three test groups were included (n=8 rabbits per group): 1) no antibiotic therapy; 2) standard “in-hospital” antibiotic prophylaxis (24 hours therapy starting 30 minutes before surgery); 3) “pre-hospital” antibiotics (single dose 15 minutes after the “accident”). The antibiotic used was cefuroxime and was administered in a weight-adjusted dosage. Results. In the absence of any antibiotic administration (group 1), high bacterial counts were identified at fixation (1.89×106 CFU) and at euthanasia (day 7, 7.70×107 CFU) in all rabbits. When 24 hours of antibiotics were administered commencing “in hospital” (group 2), the bacterial load during fixation surgery was slightly reduced (CFU 9.88×105) and 50% of animals were infected at euthanasia. When one single shot of antibiotics was administered in the “pre-hospital” setting (group 3), the bacterial load during fixation surgery was significantly lower than for both groups 1 and 2(CFU 2.34×103) yet all animals were infected at euthanasia. Conclusions. Early pre-hospital administration of antibiotics significantly reduced the bacterial load in the operative field at the time of debridement compared to regular prophylaxis. However, continuation of systemic antibiotics is necessary in order to prevent infection in this model

Aim. A previous Dutch guideline for prophylaxis of hematogenous PJI (HPJI) caused defensive medicine and incorrect own guidelines. There was a need for a better national guideline, developed cooperatively by orthopedic surgeons and dentist. Method. A committee of Dutch Orthopedic and Dental Society, performed a systematic literature review to answer the question: “Is there a difference in the risk for hematogenous infection between always or never giving antibiotic prophylaxis to patients with a joint prosthesis undergoing a dental procedure”. We included 9 papers as follows:. 1. RCT's and systematic reviews: 539 abstracts > 33 full papers > 1 paper included. 2. observational studies: 289 abstracts > 12 full papers > 5 papers. 3. reference-to-reference: 3 papers. The nine papers’ quality was scored according the GRADE method. In addition we studied in non-included literature on further information about additional questions of pathophysiology, risk factors and risk procedures. Results. No evidence was found that prophylactic antibiotics have an effect on the incidence of HPJI (Grade score: very low). We concluded from the non-included literature that:. 1. Bacteremia in dental procedures is frequent, but even more frequent in daily life. The influence of antibiotics on bacteremia is uncertain. 2. There is no evidence that in the first 2 years after implantation the risk for HPJI is increased. 3. There is no evidence that “bleeding” during dental procedures is associated with more bacteremia. 4. The relation between decreased immune status and the risk for HPJI is unclear. Also in these patients the cumulative dose of bacteremia is much higher in daily life as compared with dental procedures. 5. A risk/benefit analysis could not be made, since the data are too uncertain of effectivety of antibiotics, incidence of HPJI and of side effects of antibiotics. 6. For the same reason a cost/effectivety analysis was not possible. Even reliable data are missing about the prevalence of joint prosthesis patients. 7. There are increasing data about the relation between the oral and general health. Therefore good oral hygiene and regular dental controls is advised. 8. We could not conclude if the prophylactic use of oral Chlorhexidine prior to a dental procedure has any positive influence on HPJI incidence. Conclusions. the guideline states:. 1. there is no indication for antibiotic prophylaxis in dental procedures. 2. also not in case of decreased immunity. 3. patients should be advised to maintain good oral hygiene and have regular dental control

Aim. The aim of the present work was (i) to survey the situation of healthcare regarding the use of antibiotics in orthopaedics and trauma surgery in Germany, (ii) to determine which empiric antibiotic regimens are preferred in the treatment of periprosthethic joint infections (PJI) and (iii) to evaluate the hypothetical antibiotic adequacy of the applied empirical antibiotic therapy regimens based on a patient collective of a German university hospital. Method. A survey on empirical and prophylactic antibiotic therapy was conducted at German university and occupational health clinics (BG clinics), each in the specialties of orthopedics and trauma surgery. A total of 71 clinics were contacted by email. The questionnaire sent included open-ended questions on systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in primary hip arthroplasty; a distinction was made between hip arthroplasty due to femoral fractures and elective hip arthroplasty. In addition, the empirical antibiotic therapy used in PJIs was surveyed. To determine the success rate of prophylaxis and therapy according to sensitivity to the antibiotics applied, the survey results were compared with previously published data on antimicrobial treatment in n=81 PJI patients treated in our department between 2017 and 2020. Results. In 93.2% (elective) and 88.6% (fracture care) of the hospitals, 1st- and 2nd-generation cephalosporins are administered perioperatively for infection prophylaxis in primary hip arthroplasty. In contrast, empiric antibiotic treatment for PJI showed a clearly inhomogeneous therapeutic picture. Monotherapy with an aminopenicillin/betalactamase inhibitor is most frequently used (38.7%); 1st- and 2nd-generation cephalosporins are second most frequently used as monotherapy (18.2%). In addition, dual combination therapies have become established, mostly aminopenicillin/betalactamase inhibitor or 1st- and 2nd-generation cephalosporins, whose administration is supplemented with another antibiotic. The most common combination in PJI is aminopenicillin/betalactamase inhibitor + vancomycin (11.4%). The most widely used therapy (monotherapy with aminopenicillin/betalactamase inhibitor) would have covered 69.0% of PJI patients. Monotherapy with 1st- and 2nd-generation cephalosporins would have been susceptible to 57.8% of PJI patients. In contrast, a combination of vancomycin + 1st- and 2nd-generation cephalosporins would have been most effective, with an efficacy of 91.5% according to the resistograms, but this was used by only two hospitals. Conclusions. Empirical antibiotic therapy for the treatment of PJI is applied in more than half of the clinics with a single broad-spectrum beta-lactamase inhibitor antibiotic. This discrepancy between the everyday care in the clinics and the administration of clearly more effective combination therapies underlines the need for recommendation guidelines

Aim. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication after total joint arthroplasty. To prevent PJI, strict infection prevention measures are followed in combination with surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP). To date, scientific reports concerning the optimal duration of SAP in revision arthroplasty are scarce. The aim of this multicenter open-label, randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands, is to investigate the superiority of 5 days (extended) versus a single dose of cefazolin to prevent PJI within the first year after revision arthroplasty of the hip and knee. Method. Included patients with an assumed aseptic hip or knee revision procedure received a single dose of 2 or 3 gram cefazolin preoperatively. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive extended prophylaxis of cefazolin during 5 days postoperatively versus no prophylaxis after wound closure. Patients were excluded if evidence of PJI at revision. The primary endpoint was the incidence of PJI within one year after revision arthroplasty. PJI was defined according to the 2018 Philadelphia consensus criteria. With a sample size of 746 patients, an alpha of 5% and a power of 80%, superiority of the extended regimen would be shown if the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the absolute between-group difference of the percentage of PJI is below −4%. Results. In total 751 patients were included for analysis: 379 in the single dose cefazolin group and 372 in the extended group. Within one year, PJI occurred in 2.6% (10/379) in the single dose group and 2.4% (9/372) in the extended group (risk difference, −0.2 percentage points; 95% CI, −2.5 to 2.0%), thus superiority was not shown. Adverse drug events were seen in 20 cases with extended and 7 cases with a single dose prophylaxis. Conclusions. Extended prophylaxis is not significantly superior to a single dose of cefazolin to prevent PJI within the first year after revision arthroplasty of the hip or knee. This is the first randomized controlled trail in which the duration of SAP in the selected group of patients undergoing revision arthroplasty was studied. Extending SAP after closure of the wound could increase the selection or induction of antimicrobial resistance, has an increased risk for adverse drug events, and is therefore not in line with the primary goal of antimicrobial stewardship, comprising optimizing clinical outcomes and ensuring cost-effective therapy while minimizing unintended consequences of antimicrobial use

Aim. Following clean (class I, not contaminated) surgical procedures, the rate of surgical site infection (SSI) should be less than approximately 2%. However, an infection rate of 12.2% has been reported following removal of orthopedic implants used for treatment of fractures below the knee. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effect of a single dose of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis on the incidence of SSIs following removal of orthopedic implants used for treatment of fractures below the knee. Method. This multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial included 500 patients from 19 hospitals with a follow-up of 6 months. Eligible were patients aged 18 to 75 years with previous surgical treatment for fractures below the knee who were undergoing removal of orthopedic implants. Exclusion criteria were an active infection or fistula, antibiotic treatment, reimplantation of osteosynthesis material in the same session, allergy for cephalosporins, known kidney disease, immunosuppressant use, or pregnancy. The intervention was a single preoperative intravenous dose of 1000 mg of cefazolin (cefazolin group, n = 228) or sodium chloride (0.9%; saline group, n = 242). Primary outcome was SSI within 30 days as measured by the criteria from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Secondary outcome measures were functional outcome, health-related quality of life, and patient satisfaction. Results. Among 477 randomized patients (mean age, 44 years [SD, 15]; women, 274 [57%]; median time from orthopedic implant placement, 11 months [interquartile range, 7–16]), 470 patients completed the study. Sixty-six patients developed an SSI (14.0%): 30 patients (13.2%) in the cefazolin group vs 36 in the saline group (14.9%) (absolute risk difference, −1.7 [95% CI, −8.0 to 4.6], P = .60). Conclusions. In patients undergoing surgery for removal of orthopedic implants used for treatment of fractures below the knee, a single preoperative dose of intravenous cefazolin compared with placebo did not reduce the risk of surgical site infection within 30 days following implant removal

St Mary's Hospital, the major trauma centre for West London, treated 168 patients with lower limb open fractures in 2011 & 2012. This audit compared antibiotic administration in the emergency department against the current BOAST IV guidelines.

The choice, timing, dose, and documentation of antibiotic administration was collected from the casualty cards and the transfer documentation for any patient initially seen at another hospital. The severity of the injury (as the Gusitollo-Anderson classification) after the initial debridement and any infectious complications that presented before discharge were also recorded.

The results showed a higher compliance with the BOAST IV guidelines for those patients directly admitted rather than transferred to the major trauma centre. In direct admissions the recommended antibiotics were either not given or not adequately documented in 7% of cases. In those patients transferred from another emergency department the documentation was inadequate in 27% of cases.

The likely causes of these results are discussed alongside the unit's bone infection rates.

In late 2011 there was a change in antimicrobial policy in orthopaedic surgery to reduce the Clostridium difficile (C. diff) rate, this was inducted top down from government, to PCT, to hospital trust. The previous antimicrobial policy was Cefuroxime, this was changed to Flucloxacillin and Gentimicin. Following this change it was noticed an increased number of patients appeared to suffer from acute kidney injury (AKI). This led us to evaluate the incidence of AKI pre and post antibiotic change and look at the causes behind this.

In this retrospective study all patients admitted with fracture neck of femurs were identified from the National Hip Fracture database and data pulled. The degree of AKI was classified according to the validated RIFILE criteria.

Evaluation showed 2–4 fold increase in AKI since antibiotic change. Although mortality was decreased in these patients, the incidence of AKI had increased significantly. However, C. difficile has been obliterated by this change.

The investigation highlights potential problems with increased rates of AKI amongst NOF patients, since antibiotic change. Flucloxacillin may have significant impact on this patient group. Dose dependent antibiotics will now be given based on weight and eGFR. Further analysis of this new change needs to be evaluated.

Our Trust's prophylactic antibiotic regime for elective hip and knee replacements recently changed, following the publication of Department of Health guidelines aimed at reducing the incidence of Clostridium Difficile associated diarrhoea (CDAD). We aimed to assess whether this change has reduced the incidence of post-operative CDAD.

We reviewed all primary and revision total hip and knee replacements performed in Gloucestershire Royal Hospital between April 2007 and March 2010. Up to August 2008, patients received prophylaxis with cefuroxime (Group A). This subsequently changed to flucloxacillin and gentamicin (Group B). All patients who developed CDAD within one month of surgery were identified and their case-notes were reviewed for the presence of CDAD risk factors, such as concomitant use of broad-spectrum antibiotics.

3117 patients were included and 15 developed CDAD (0.48%); 12 patients (0.77%) from Group A and 3 from Group B (0.19%), representing a four-fold decrease. Analysis of a 2×2 contingency table with Fisher's exact test showed that the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P=0.0347).

Case-note analysis revealed that 8/12 patients in Group A and 1/3 patients in Group B had other risk factors for developing CDAD. Excluding these patients, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (P=0.218).

CDAD is exceedingly rare following total joint replacement surgery, especially when the only antibiotics given are prophylactic. Our figures are in line with a general decline in CDAD nationally from 2007. This decline is most likely due to multiple factors, such as hand-washing, barrier nursing and restrictive antibiotic policies. The effect of the change in prophylaxis is therefore difficult to quantify. Choice of prophylactic antibiotics should be based upon their efficacy alone, not their potential to reduce CDAD.