RESUMEN
Background and objective Recent studies have challenged the notion that prolonged intravenous (IV) antibiotics are preferable to oral antibiotics for treating musculoskeletal infections. Our institution's orthopedic surgery and orthopedic infectious disease (ID) groups have established consensus criteria for the use of oral antibiotics in musculoskeletal infections. In this study, we examine one-year and two-year outcomes of the selective use of oral antibiotics for musculoskeletal infections in a real-world setting. Methods We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of adults seen in our orthopedic ID clinic over a six-month period for the first episode of surgically managed osteomyelitis, native joint septic arthritis (NJSA), prosthetic joint infection (PJI), or other musculoskeletal hardware infection with an established microbiologic etiology who received surgical interventions and >2 weeks of antimicrobial treatment. Patients were evaluated for treatment failure at one year and two years following their index surgery, which we defined as death, unplanned surgery, or the initiation of chronic antibiotic suppression. Results One-year treatment failure rates were 0/23 (0%) in patients who switched to oral therapy versus 6/17 (35%) in patients who remained on IV treatment. Two-year treatment failure rates were 0/23 (0%) in patients who switched to oral therapy versus 8/17 (47%) in patients who remained on IV treatment. Conclusions Our consensus criteria for the switch to oral antibiotics for musculoskeletal infections identified patients who went on to have excellent outcomes at one year and two years, suggesting that these criteria can effectively identify patients at low risk for treatment failure. Collaboration between ID specialists and orthopedic surgeons to select antimicrobial regimens can avoid significant burdens, costs, and complications associated with prolonged IV therapy.