Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Not so Fast: Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis Does Not Reduce 90-Day Infection Rate Following Joint Arthroplasty.
Flynn, Jade B; Yokhana, Sanar S; Wilson, Jacob M; Schultz, Jacob D; Hymel, Alicia M; Martin, John R.
Afiliación
  • Flynn JB; Department of Pharmaceutical Services, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
  • Yokhana SS; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
  • Wilson JM; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
  • Schultz JD; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
  • Hymel AM; Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
  • Martin JR; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
J Arthroplasty ; 2024 Apr 27.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38685337
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication following both total hip (THA) and knee (TKA) arthroplasty. Extended oral antibiotic (EOA) prophylaxis has been reported to reduce PJI following TJA in high-risk patients. The purpose of this study was to determine if EOA reduces PJI in all-comers and high-risk THA and TKA populations.

METHODS:

This is a retrospective cohort study, including 4,576 patients undergoing primary THA or TKA at a single institution from 2018 to 2022. Beginning in 2020, EOA prophylaxis was administered for 10 days following THA or TKA at our institution. Patients were separated into 2 cohorts (1,769 EOA, 2,807 no EOA) based on whether they received postoperative EOA. The 90-day and 1-year outcomes, with a focus on PJI, were then compared between groups. A subgroup analysis of high-risk patients was also performed.

RESULTS:

There was no difference in 90-day PJI rates between cohorts (EOA 1 versus no EOA 0.8%; P = .6). The difference in the rate of PJI remained insignificant at 1 year (EOA 1 versus no EOA 1%; P = .9). Similarly, our subgroup analysis of high-risk patients demonstrated no difference in postoperative PJI between EOA (n = 254) and no EOA (n = 396) (0.8 versus 2.3%, respectively; P = .2). Reassuringly, we also found no differences in the incidence of Clostridium difficile infection (EOA 0.1 versus no EOA 0.1%; P > .9) or in antibiotic resistance among those who developed PJI within 90 days (EOA 59 versus no EOA 83%; P = .2).

CONCLUSIONS:

With the numbers available for analysis, EOA prophylaxis was not associated with PJI risk reduction following primary TJA when universally deployed. Furthermore, among high-risk patients, there was no statistically significant difference. While we did not identify increased antibiotic resistance or Clostridium difficile infection, we cannot recommend wide-spread adoption of EOA prophylaxis, and clarification regarding the role of EOA, even in high-risk patients, is needed.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: J Arthroplasty Asunto de la revista: ORTOPEDIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: J Arthroplasty Asunto de la revista: ORTOPEDIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article