Current standard of care in the management of bone and joint infection commonly includes a 4–6 week course of intravenous (IV) antibiotics but there is little evidence to suggest that oral antibiotic therapy results in worse outcomes. The primary objective was to determine whether oral antibiotics are non-inferior to IV antibiotics in this setting. This was a parallel group, randomised (1:1), open label, non-inferiority trial across twenty-six NHS hospitals in the United Kingdom. Eligible patients were adults with a clinical diagnosis of bone, joint or orthopaedic metalware-associated infection who would ordinarily receive at least six weeks of antibiotics and who had received ≤7 days of IV therapy from the date of definitive surgery (or the start of planned curative treatment in patients managed non-operatively). Participants were randomised to receive either oral or IV antibiotics for the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on oral therapy was permitted in either arm. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants experiencing definitive treatment failure within one year of randomisation. The non-inferiority margin was set at 7.5%.Aim
Method
To assess the influence of route of antibiotic administration on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) of individuals treated for hip and knee infections in the OVIVA multi-centre randomised controlled trial. This study was designed to determine whether oral antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to intravenous (IV) therapy when given for the first six weeks of treatment for bone and joint infections. Of the 1054 participants recruited from 26 centres, 462 were treated for periprosthetic or native joint infections of the hip or knee. There were 243 participants in the IV antibiotic cohort and 219 in the oral cohort. Functional outcome was determined at baseline through to one year using the Oxford Hip/Knee Score (OHS/OKS) as joint-specific measures (0 the worse and 48 the best). An adjusted quantile regression model was used to compare functional outcome scores.Aim
Method
Collection of 4–5 independent peri-prosthetic tissue samples is recommended for microbiological diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections. Sonication of explanted prostheses has also been shown to increase microbiological yield in some centres. We compared sonication with standard tissue sampling for diagnosis of prosthetic joint and other orthopaedic device related infections. We used standard protocols for sample collection, tissue culture and sonication. Positive tissue culture was defined as isolation of a phenotypically indistinguishable organism from ≥2 samples; and positive sonication culture as isolation of an organism at ≥50 cfu/ml. We compared the diagnostic performance of each method against an established clinical definition of infection (Trampuz 2011), and against a composite clinical and microbiological definition of infection based on international consensus (Gehrke & Parvizi 2013). 350 specimens were received for sonication, including joint prostheses (160), exchangeable components (76), other orthopaedic hardware and cement (104), and bone (10). A median of 5 peri-prosthetic tissue samples were received from each procedure (IQR 4–5). Tissue culture was more sensitive than sonication for diagnosis of prosthetic joint and orthopaedic device related infection using both the clinical definition (66% versus 57%, McNemar's Χ2 test p=0.016) and the composite definition of infection (87% vs 66%, p<0.001). The combination of tissue culture and sonication provided optimum sensitivity: 73% (95% confidence interval 65–79%) against the clinical definition and 92% (86–96%) against the composite definition. Results were similar when analysis was confined to joint prostheses and exchangeable components; other orthopaedic hardware; and patients who had received antibiotics within 14 days prior to surgery. Tissue sampling appears to have higher sensitivity than sonication for diagnosis of prosthetic joint and orthopaedic device infection at our centre. This may reflect rigorous collection of multiple peri-prosthetic tissue samples. A combination of methods may offer optimal sensitivity, reflecting the anatomical and biological spectrum of prosthetic joint and other device related infections.
