Intra-abdominal Pressure Changes During Hip Arthroscopy: A Prospective Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate intra-abdominal pressure changes during hip arthroscopy and define its relationship with other patient related variables. METHODS: A prospective multicenter study evaluating intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) in patients undergoing arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement was performed. The IAP was measured indirectly by a bladder catheter (AbViser Autovalve Intra-abdominal pressure monitor) and documented every 30 minutes during the entire procedure. The following risk factors were analyzed: traction time, duration surgery, previous abdominal surgery, capsule repair, psoas tenotomy, and surgical approach. RESULTS: One hundred and five patients with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement that underwent hip arthroscopy met the inclusion criteria. There were significant differences in the IAP between the preoperative measurement of IAP and the IAP at different time points during surgery (P < .01). The IAP increased continuously from the commencement of surgery (considered as time point from portal establishment) until the first 60 minutes. After first 60 minutes of surgery, the IAP did not increase significantly. There were no significant associations between increased IAP and the risk factors analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: IAP increases significantly during the first 60 minutes of hip arthroscopy; it then stabilizes for the duration of surgery before decreasing just after the completion of surgery. The highest recorded IAP was not associated with additional complications. No symptomatic intra-abdominal hypertension was documented. Finally, patient- and procedure-specific risk factors did not predict changes in IAP. Systemic monitoring of IAP during the hip arthroscopy procedure can easily and effectively be done, allowing the surgeon to early detect any significant change. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

[Eradication of Staphylococcus aureus in carrier patients undergoing joint arthroplasty]. / Resultados de una intervención de descolonización de Staphylococcus aureus en pacientes portadores a los que se indica una prótesis articular.

INTRODUCTION: Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a complication with serious repercussions and its main cause is Staphylococcus aureus. The purpose of this study is to determine whether decolonization of S.aureus carriers helps to reduce the incidence of PJI by S.aureus. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An S.aureus screening test was performed on nasal carriers in patients undergoing knee or hip arthroplasty between January and December 2011. Patients with a positive test were treated with intranasal mupirocin and chlorhexidine soap 5 days. The incidence of PJI was compared with patients undergoing the same surgery between January and December 2010. RESULTS: A total of 393 joint replacements were performed in 391 patients from the control group, with 416 joint replacements being performed in the intervention group. Colonization study was performed in 382 patients (91.8%), of which 102 were positive (26.7%) and treated. There was 2 PJI due S.aureus compared with 9 in the control group (0.5% vs 2.3%, odds ratio [OR]: 0.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4 to 2.3, P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the detection of colonization and eradication of S.aureus carriers achieved a significant decrease in PJI due to S.aureus compared to a historical group.

Dual prophylaxis with teicoplanin and cefazolin in the prevention of prosthetic joint infection. / Profilaxis dual con teicoplanina añadida a cefazolina en la prevención de la infección de prótesis articular.

INTRODUCTION: There is a growing increase in prosthetic joint infection (PJI) incidence due to cephalosporin-resistant bacteria, used in surgical prophylaxis. The replacement of these with glycopeptides has not been shown to improve the results, but they have been shown to improve with their combination. METHODS: Comparative study of combination of teicoplanin and cefazolin before arthroplasty surgery against cefazolin alone from a previous control group. RESULTS: During the control period, there were 16 PJIs from 585 surgeries, while in the intervention group there were 6 from 579 (incidence 2.7% vs. 1.03%, RR 0.4, P=.04). In control group, 11 of the infections were caused by Gram-positive bacteria versus 4 in the intervention group (1.8% vs. 0.7%, P=.08). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of teicoplanin to cefazolin in the prophylaxis of arthroplasty surgery was associated with a reduction in the incidence of PJI, thanks to a decrease in infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria.