Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Similar Efficacy and Lower Cost Associated With Ceftazidime Compared to Tobramycin Coupled With Vancomycin in Antibiotic Spacers in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection.
Lewis, Daniel C; Blackburn, Brenna E; Archibeck, Jane; Archibeck, Michael J; Anderson, Lucas A; Gililland, Jeremy M; Certain, Laura K; Pelt, Christopher E.
Afiliación
  • Lewis DC; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
  • Blackburn BE; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
  • Archibeck J; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
  • Archibeck MJ; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
  • Anderson LA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
  • Gililland JM; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
  • Certain LK; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
  • Pelt CE; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
J Arthroplasty ; 39(8S1): S323-S327, 2024 Aug.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38631513
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Vancomycin and tobramycin have traditionally been used in antibiotic spacers. In 2020, our institution replaced tobramycin with ceftazidime. We hypothesized that the use of ceftazidime/vancomycin (CV) in antibiotic spacers would not lead to an increase in treatment failure compared to tobramycin/vancomycin (TV).

METHODS:

From 2014 to 2022, we identified 243 patients who underwent a stage I revision for periprosthetic joint infection. The primary outcome was a recurrent infection requiring antibiotic spacer exchange. We were adequately powered to detect a 10% difference in recurrent infection. Patients who had a prior failed stage I or two-stage revision for infection, acute kidney injury prior to surgery, or end-stage renal disease were excluded. Given no other changes to our spacer constructs, we estimated cost differences attributable to the antibiotic change. Chi-square and t-tests were used to compare the two groups. Multivariable logistic regressions were utilized for the outcomes.

RESULTS:

The combination of TV was used in 127 patients; CV was used in 116 patients. Within one year of stage I, 9.8% of the TV group had a recurrence of infection versus 7.8% of the CV group (P = .60). By final follow-up, results were similar (12.6 versus 8.6%, respectively, P = .32). Adjusting for potential risk factors did not alter the results. Cost savings for ceftazidime versus tobramycin are estimated to be $68,550 per one hundred patients treated.

CONCLUSIONS:

Replacing tobramycin with ceftazidime in antibiotic spacers yielded similar periprosthetic joint infection eradication success at a lower cost. While larger studies are warranted to confirm these efficacy and cost-saving results, our data justifies the continued investigation and use of ceftazidime as an alternative to tobramycin in antibiotic spacers.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Asunto principal: Tobramicina / Vancomicina / Ceftazidima / Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis / Antibacterianos Límite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: J Arthroplasty / J. arthroplasty / Journal of arthroplasty Asunto de la revista: ORTOPEDIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Asunto principal: Tobramicina / Vancomicina / Ceftazidima / Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis / Antibacterianos Límite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: J Arthroplasty / J. arthroplasty / Journal of arthroplasty Asunto de la revista: ORTOPEDIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article