We used 99 strains of organisms representative of
The duration of systemic antibiotic treatment following first-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is contentious. Our philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, and to use a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics in cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. The aim of this study was to assess the success of this philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol. The study involved a retrospective review of our prospectively collected database from which we identified all patients who underwent an intended two-stage revision for PJI of the hip. All patients had a diagnosis of PJI according to the major criteria of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) 2013, a minimum five-year follow-up, and were assessed using the MSIS working group outcome-reporting tool. The outcomes were grouped into ‘successful’ or ‘unsuccessful’.Aims
Methods
To compare the functional outcome, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and satisfaction of patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and a single debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure for deep infection, using either the transgluteal or the posterior surgical approach for both procedures. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT03161990) on 15 May 2017. Patients treated with a single DAIR procedure for deep infection through the same operative approach as their primary THA (either the transgluteal or the posterior approach) were identified in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and given a questionnaire. Median follow-up after DAIR by questionnaire was 5.5 years in the transgluteal group (n = 87) and 2.5 years in the posterior approach group (n = 102).Aims
Methods
Of growing concern in arthroplasty is the emergence of atypical infections, particularly For this non-randomized non-blinded study, 101 adult patients scheduled for hip or knee surgery were recruited. For each, four 3 mm dermal punch biopsies were collected after administration of anaesthesia, but prior to antibiotics. Prebiopsy skin preparation consisted of a standardized preoperative 2% chlorhexidine skin cleansing protocol and an additional 70% isopropyl alcohol mechanical skin scrub immediately prior to biopsy collection. Two skin samples 10 cm apart were collected from a location approximating a standard direct anterior skin incision, and two samples 10 cm apart were collected from a lateral skin incision (suitable for posterior, direct-lateral, or anterolateral approaches). Samples were cultured for two weeks using a protocol optimized for Aims
Methods
Current treatments of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) are minimally effective against The ability of PlySs2 and vancomycin to kill biofilm and colony-forming units (CFUs) on orthopaedic implants were compared using in vitro models. An in vivo murine PJI model of DAIR was used to assess the efficacy of a combination of PlySs2 and vancomycin on periprosthetic bacterial load.Aims
Methods
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centre
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published guidelines
for the prevention of surgical site infection. The WHO guidelines,
if implemented worldwide, could have an immense impact on our practices
and those of the CDC have implications for healthcare policy in
the United States. Our aim was to review the strategies for prevention of periprosthetic
joint infection in light of these and other recent guidelines. Cite this article:
Louis Pasteur once said that: “Fortune favours
the prepared mind.” As one of the great scientists who contributed
to the fight against infection, he emphasised the importance of
being prepared at all times to recognise infection and deal with
it. Despite the many scientific discoveries and technological advances,
such as the advent of antibiotics and the use of sterile techniques,
infection continues to be a problem that haunts orthopaedic surgeons
and inflicts suffering on patients. The medical community has implemented many practices with the
intention of preventing infection and treating it effectively when
it occurs. Although high-level evidence may support some of these
practices, many are based on little to no scientific foundation.
Thus, around the world, there is great variation in practices for
the prevention and management of periprosthetic joint infection. This paper summaries the instigation, conduct and findings of
a recent International Consensus Meeting on Surgical Site and Periprosthetic
Joint Infection. Cite this article:
