Search

Background and purpose -- The long-term results of the 1- or 2-stage revision procedure and infection-free prosthesis survival in a tertiary referral center are unknown. In this retrospective observational study, the long-term results of infection control and infection-free prosthesis survival of the periprosthetic joint infection-related 1- and 2-stage revision procedure are evaluated. Furthermore, the merits of performing an antibiotic-free window in the 2-stage revision is evaluated. Patients and methods -- All patients who received a 1- or 2-stage revision procedure of the hip or knee between 2010 and 2017 were included. Data was collected on patient and infection characteristics. The primary treatment aim was successful infection control without the use of antibiotic therapy afterwards. Infection-free survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan--Meier method with type of periprosthetic joint infection-related revision as covariate. Within the group of 2-stage revisions, use of an antibioticfree window was selected as covariate. Results -- 128 patients were treated for a periprosthetic joint infection-related revision procedure (81 hips and 47 knees). Successful infection control was achieved in 18 of 21 cases for the 1-stage and 89 out of 107 cases for the 2-stage revision procedure (83%) respectively after follow-up of more than 4 years. In addition, 2-stage revision procedure infection control was achieved in 52 of 60 cases with an antibiotic- free interval and 37 of 45 cases without such interval (p = 0.6). The mean infection-free survival of the 1-stage revision was 90 months (95% CI 75--105) and 98 months (CI 90--106) for the 2-stage revision procedure. Interpretation -- There seems to be no difference in infection control and infection-free survival between the 1- and 2-stage revision procedure. Second, an antibiotic-free window in the case of a 2-stage revision did not seem to influence treatment outcome. However, one must be cautious when interpreting these results due to confounding by indication and the small study population. Therefore, no definite conclusion can be drawn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose We investigated the hypothesis that many total hip arthroplasty revisions that are classified as aseptic are in fact low-grade infections missed with routine diagnostics. Methods In 7 Dutch hospitals, 176 consecutive patients with the preoperative diagnosis of aseptic loosening of their total hip arthroplasty were enrolled. During surgery, between 14 and 20 tissue samples were obtained for culture, pathology, and broad-range 16S rRNA PCR with reverse line blot hybridization. Patients were classified as either not being infected, suspected of having infection, or infected according to strict, predefined criteria. Each patient had a follow-up visit after 1 year. Results 7 patients were classified as infected, 4 of whom were not identified by routine culture. 15 additional patients were suspected of having infection. 20 of these 22 patients received a cemented prosthesis, fixated with antibiotic-loaded bone cement. All 22 patients received prophylactic systemic antibiotics. 7 of them reported complaints one year after surgery, but only one showed signs of early loosening. However, additional surgery was not performed in any of the patients. Interpretation Although the proportions were not as high as previously reported in the literature, between 4% and 13% of patients with the preoperative diagnosis of aseptic loosening were infected. However, as thorough debridement was performed during surgery and prophylactic antibiotics were used, the diagnosis of infection did not have any obvious clinical consequences, as most patients performed well at the 1-year follow-up. Whether this observation has implications for long-term implant survival remains to be seen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are notorious complications in spinal surgery and cause substantial patient morbidity. Intraoperative decontamination of the wound with povidone-iodine irrigation or vancomycin powder has gained attention lately, but the efficacy of either intervention is unclear.Purpose: To determine the efficacy of intrawound povidone-iodine or vancomycin in reducing the incidence of deep- and superficial SSIs in instrumented spinal surgery.Study Design/setting: Retrospective cohort study.Patient Sample: A retrospective chart review was performed including all consecutive adult patients undergoing open, posterior, instrumented spinal surgery at any level between January 2012 and August 2017.Outcome Measures: The presence of SSI was evaluated according to the criteria published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The SSIs were divided into deep SSIs (below the muscular fascia) and superficial SSIs (above the muscular fascia).Methods: A retrospective cohort without intrawound treatment was compared with two separate, consecutive intervention groups. One intrawound group received 1.3g/L povidone-iodine irrigation and the other received 1-2 grams of intrawound vancomycin powder at the end of surgery. Incidence of SSIs, as well as demographic, surgical and patient-related variables were registered and compared between groups. In patients with SSI, additional microbiological data were collected.Results: In total, 853 patients were included. In the control group (N=257), 25 (9.7%) patients developed a deep and 13 (5.1%) developed a superficial SSI. In the povidone-iodine group (N=217), 21 (9.7%) patients developed a deep and two (0.9%) developed a superficial SSI. Compared with the control group, there was no significant difference in the incidence of deep SSIs (risk ratio [RR]: 1.00, 95% CI 0.57-1.73), although the number of superficial SSIs was reduced significantly (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.80). In the vancomycin group (N=379), 19 (5.0%) patients developed a deep and six (1.6%) developed a superficial SSI. Both deep (RR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.29-0.92) and superficial SSIs (RR: 0.31, 95% CI 0.12-0.81) were significantly reduced in the vancomycin group compared with the control group, even when correcting for several risk factors associated with SSIs in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. There were no significant differences in complications between the 3 groups. No gram-negative selection or vancomycin-resistance was seen in the vancomycin group.Conclusions: Intrawound application of vancomycin was associated with a significant reduction in both deep and superficial SSIs in instrumented spinal surgery. A 1.3g/L intrawound povidone-iodine solution did not show a reduction in deep SSIs, although a reduction of superficial SSIs was observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]