Search

Fluoroquinolones (FQs) are considered the most effective antimicrobial treatment for Gram-negative prosthetic joint infection (GN-PJI). Alternatives are needed due to increasing FQ resistance and side effects. We aimed to compare different targeted antimicrobial strategies for GN-PJI managed by debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) or one-stage revision surgery (1SR) and to review the literature of oral treatment options for GN-PJI. In this prospective, multicenter, registry-based study, all consecutive patients with a PJI caused by a Gram-negative microorganism (including mixed infections with Gram-positive microorganisms), managed with DAIR or 1SR from 2015 to 2020, were included. Minimum follow-up was 1 year. Patients underwent targeted therapy with oral FQ, oral cotrimoxazole, or intravenous or oral β-lactams. Survival analysis was performed with use of Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models to identify factors potentially associated with treatment failure. Seventy-four patients who received either FQ ( n = 47, 64%), cotrimoxazole ( n = 13, 18%), or β-lactams ( n = 14, 18%) were included. Surgical strategy consisted of DAIR ( n = 72) or 1SR ( n = 2). Median follow-up was 449 days (interquartile range 89-738 days). Failure free survival did not differ between the FQ (72%) and cotrimoxazole (92%) groups (log rank, P = 0.13). This outcome did not change when excluding all pseudomonal PJI in the FQ group. Cotrimoxazole is a potential effective targeted antimicrobial therapy for patients with GN-PJI. A randomized controlled trial is needed to confirm the findings of this study., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Objectives: To identify global differences in the use of suppressive antimicrobial therapy (SAT) in the management of prosthetic joint infection (PJI)., Methods: An online survey was designed to investigate clinician's approach to SAT for PJI, including indications, preferred antimicrobial drugs, dosing, treatment duration and follow-up. The survey was distributed to members of four international (bone and joint) infection societies and study groups., Results: Respondents comprised 330 physicians (204 infectious diseases specialists, 110 orthopedic surgeons, 23 clinical microbiologists) from 43 different countries (Europe, n = 134, 41%; Oceania n = 112, 34%; North America, n = 51, 16%; other, n = 33, 10%; total response rate 20%). After debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) or one-stage revision, SAT would be initiated often or almost always by 38% of respondents from North America, but only in 6% from Europe and 7% from Oceania. First choices of SAT for staphylococcal PJI were oral cephalosporins (39%) and tetracyclines (31%) in North America; tetracyclines (27%) and anti-staphylococcal penicillins (22%) in Europe; and anti-staphylococcal penicillins (55%) in Oceania. There was no global or regional preferred SAT regimen for Gram-negative PJI. Of all respondents, dosage of SAT was never lowered (n = 126, 38%), lowered for specific antibiotics (n = 125, 38%) or lowered for all antibiotics (n = 79, 24%). SAT was prescribed for a lifelong duration (n = 43, 13%), a fixed duration (range 6 months-3 years) (n = 104, 32%) or for an undetermined duration (n = 154, 47%)., Conclusions: Approach to SAT in PJI is highly regional, with no consensus regarding the indication, selection, dose, or duration of SAT between physicians worldwide. This reflects the paucity of data and need for high quality studies to define the optimal use of SAT in the treatment of patients with PJI., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: A periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a major complication of arthroplasty. Treatment of PJI consists of surgical debridement with or without the exchange of the implant and long-term antimicrobial treatment. Rifampicin is regarded as one of the cornerstones of antimicrobial treatment for staphylococcal PJI, but the exact role of rifampicin for PJI in different clinical scenarios remains to be elucidated., Areas Covered: In this perspective article, an overview is provided of in vitro, in vivo and clinical studies that were the basis of the current guidelines and recommendations for rifampicin use in daily practice for PJI. Controversial issues on indication, dosing, timing, duration, and antibiotic drug interactions will be addressed. Finally, the most urgent clinical questions on rifampicin use that need answering in the nearby future will be formulated., Expert Opinion: Many inquiries remain concerning the exact indications and clinical use of rifampicin in PJI. Randomized controlled trials are needed to answer these questions.

Prosthetic joint infection A prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication that can lead to lengthy hospitalization, significant limitations in mobility, and a reduced quality of life. For acute PJI, the aim is to cure the infection whilst retaining the prosthesis; this can be achieved by means of thorough surgical debridement, cleaning of the artificial material, replacement of exchangeable prosthesis parts and adjuvant antibiotic therapy. In cases of chronic PJI, the prosthetic joint needs to be replaced. For patients in whom surgery is not feasible, or who refuse surgical intervention, chronic suppressive antibiotic therapy can be applied if the infection persists. In order to increase the likelihood of a favourable outcome, it is important to take a multidisciplinary approach.

Background: Periprosthetic infections after pelvic reconstruction are common, with reported rates ranging from 11% to 53%. Management of these infections is troublesome, as they commonly necessitate multiple surgical interventions and implant removal. The epidemiology and outcomes of these infections are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to analyze the causative microorganisms and the clinical outcome of treatment in a series of patients with pelvic endoprostheses affected by infection following tumor resection., Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter cohort study, we identified all patients who developed an infection after endoprosthetic reconstruction in periacetabular tumor resection, between 2003 and 2017. The microorganisms that were isolated during the first debridement were recorded, as were the number of reoperations for ongoing infection, the antimicrobial treatment strategy, and the outcome of treatment., Results: In a series of 70 patients who underwent pelvic endoprosthetic reconstruction, 18 (26%) developed an infection. The type of pelvic resection according to the Enneking-Dunham classification was type P2-3 in 14 (78%) of these patients and type P2 in 4 (22%). Median follow-up was 66 months. Fourteen (78%) of the 18 patients with infection had a polymicrobial infection. Enterobacteriaceae were identified on culture for 12 (67%). Of a total 42 times that a microorganism was isolated, the identified pathogen was gram-negative in 26 instances (62%). Microorganisms associated with intestinal flora were identified 32 times (76%). At the time of latest follow-up, 9 (50%) of the patients had the original implant in situ. Of these, 2 had a fistula and another 2 were receiving suppressive antibiotic therapy. In the remaining 9 (50%) of the patients, the original implant had been removed. At the time of final follow-up, 3 of these had a second implant in situ. The remaining 6 patients had undergone no secondary reconstruction., Conclusions: Infections that affect pelvic endoprostheses are predominantly polymicrobial and caused by gram-negative microorganisms, and may be associated with intestinal flora. This differs fundamentally from mono-bacterial gram-positive causes of conventional periprosthetic joint infections and may indicate a different pathogenesis. Our results suggest that prophylaxis and empiric treatment may need to be re-evaluated., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.