Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 106-B, Issue SUPP_19 | Pages 78 - 78
22 Nov 2024
IS ONE DOSE NON-INFERIOR TO FOUR DOSES OF SYSTEMIC ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS AGAINST PERIPROSTHETIC JOINT INFECTION IN PRIMARY ARTHROPLASTY?
Lutro O Tjørhom MB Fenstad AM Leta TH Hallan G Bruun T Furnes O Gjertsen J Dale H
Full Access
View article

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.

Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 104-B, Issue SUPP_10 | Pages 37 - 37
1 Oct 2022
VALIDATION OF REPORTED REVISIONS FOR DEEP INFECTION TO A NATIONAL ARTHROPLASTY REGISTER
Lutro O Mo S Leta TH Fenstad AM Tjørhom MB Bruun T Hallan G Furnes O Dale H
Full Access
View article

Aim

In recent years, many studies on revision for infection after arthroplasty have been published. In national arthroplasty registers, revision for infection is defined as surgical debridement, with or without removal or exchange of the entire or parts of the prosthesis due to deep infection, and should be reported to the register immediately after surgery. The diagnosis of infection is made at the surgeon's discretion, based on pre- and perioperative assessment and evaluation, and is not to be corrected to the register based on peroperative bacterial cultures. Due to this lack of validation, the rate of revision for infection will only be an approximation of the true rate of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Our aim was to validate the reporting of infection after total hip arthroplasty, and to assess if revisions for infection actually represented true PJI.

Methods

We investigated the reported revisions for infection and aseptic loosening after total hip arthroplasty from 12 hospitals, representing one region of the country, reported during the period 2010–2020. The electronic patient charts were investigated for information on surgical treatment, use of antibiotics, biochemistry and microbiology findings. PJI was defined as growth of at least two phenotypically identical microbes in perioperative tissue samples. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were calculated.

Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 100-B, Issue SUPP_17 | Pages 19 - 19
1 Dec 2018
RESULT OF REVISION SURGERY FOR INFECTED TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY: DO SURGICAL STRATEGIES MATTER?
Leta TH Lygre SHL Høvding P Schrama J Hallan G Dale H Furnes O
Full Access
View article

Background

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after knee arthroplasty surgery remains a serious complication. Yet, there is no international consensus on the surgical treatment of PJI. The purpose was to assess the prosthesis survival rates, risk of re-revision, and mortality rate following the different surgical strategies (1-stage or 2-stage implant revision, and irrigation and debridement (IAD) with implant retention) used to treat PJI.

Methods

The study was based on 653 total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) revised due to PJI in the period 1994 to 2016. Kaplan-Meier (KM) and multiple Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the survival rate of these revisions and the risk of re-revisions. We also studied the mortality rates at 90 days and 1 year after revision for PJI.

Image linking to Orthomedia