Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Publication year range
1.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39121941

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in hip surgeries has significantly decreased thanks to intravenous (IV) antibiotic prophylaxis. However, in patients colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or those at risk of colonization, it is necessary to include vancomycin in the prophylaxis. Intraosseous administration of vancomycin could enhance its effectiveness in total hip arthroplasty (THA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted between March and December 2023 involving 53 patients scheduled for primary THA with colonization risk factors. The median age of the patients was 67 years (range 61 to 75), and all received treatment with intraosseous vancomycin (500mg). Detailed records and documentation of complications during hospitalization and the first three months post-surgery were maintained. As a secondary outcome measure, the incidence of PJI was explored. RESULTS: We administered 500mg of intraosseous vancomycin, injected into the greater trochanter, along with standard IV prophylaxis. The incidence of complications was 1.64%. The PJI rate at 90 days was 0%. CONCLUSIONS: Intraosseous administration of low-dose vancomycin in THA for patients at risk of MRSA colonization, combined with standard IV prophylaxis, was shown to be safe and did not present significant adverse effects. Furthermore, this strategy eliminates the logistical challenges associated with timely vancomycin administration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: Case Series.

2.
Acta Ortop Mex ; 38(3): 172-178, 2024.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38862147

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis has significantly reduced the incidence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in knee surgeries. However, for patients colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or those at risk of colonization, prophylaxis should include vancomycin. Intraosseous (IO) administration of vancomycin could enhance its effectiveness in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: a retrospective review was conducted, including 143 patients at risk of PJI scheduled for TKA who received IO vancomycin along with intravenous (IV) cefazolin, referred to as group I (GI), between May 2021 and December 2022. The occurrence of complications in the first three postoperative months was evaluated. Results were compared with 140 patients without risk factors who received standard IV prophylaxis, designated as group II (GII). RESULTS: in GI, 500 mg of IO vancomycin was administered, injected into the proximal tibia, in addition to standard IV prophylaxis. In GII, patients received only IV cefazolin. The incidence of complications was 1.64% in GI and 1.4% in GII. The PJI rate at 90 postoperative days was 0.69% in GI and 0.71% in GII. CONCLUSIONS: IO vancomycin administration, along with standard IV prophylaxis, provides a safe and effective alternative for patients at risk of MRSA colonization. This approach minimizes complications associated with IV vancomycin use and addresses logistical challenges of timely administration.


INTRODUCCIÓN: la profilaxis antibiótica intravenosa ha reducido significativamente la incidencia de infección articular periprotésica (IAP) en cirugías de rodilla. No obstante, para pacientes colonizados con Staphylococcus aureus resistente a meticilina (SARM) o aquellos con riesgo de colonización, la profilaxis debe incluir vancomicina. La administración intraósea de vancomicina podría potenciar su efectividad en la artroplastía total de rodilla. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: se realizó una revisión retrospectiva que incluyó a 143 pacientes en riesgo de IAP programados para artroplastía total de rodilla que recibieron vancomicina intraósea junto a cefazolina intravenosa (IV), a quienes denominamos grupo I (GI), entre mayo de 2021 y diciembre de 2022. Se evaluó la aparición de complicaciones en los primeros tres meses postoperatorios. Los resultados se compararon con 140 pacientes sin factores de riesgo que recibieron profilaxis intravenosa estándar, denominados grupo II (GII). RESULTADOS: en el GI, se administraron 500 mg de vancomicina intraósea, inyectados en la tibia proximal, además de la profilaxis intravenosa estándar. En el GII, los pacientes recibieron sólo cefazolina intravenosa. La incidencia de complicaciones fue de 1.64% en el GI y de 1.4% en el GII. La tasa de IAP a los 90 días postoperatorios fue de 0.69% en el GI y de 0.71% en el GII. CONCLUSIONES: la administración de vancomicina intraósea, junto con la profilaxis intravenosa estándar, ofrece una alternativa segura y eficaz para pacientes con riesgo de colonización por SARM. Este enfoque minimiza las complicaciones asociadas con el uso intravenoso de vancomicina y soluciona los desafíos logísticos de la administración oportuna.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents , Antibiotic Prophylaxis , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee , Cefazolin , Prosthesis-Related Infections , Vancomycin , Humans , Vancomycin/administration & dosage , Vancomycin/therapeutic use , Retrospective Studies , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/adverse effects , Male , Female , Aged , Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Antibiotic Prophylaxis/methods , Middle Aged , Prosthesis-Related Infections/prevention & control , Prosthesis-Related Infections/etiology , Cefazolin/administration & dosage , Cefazolin/therapeutic use , Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus/drug effects , Infusions, Intraosseous , Aged, 80 and over , Staphylococcal Infections/prevention & control
3.
Acta Ortop Mex ; 38(2): 95-100, 2024.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38782474

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: one- or two-stage total revision is considered the gold standard for the treatment of hip arthroplasty with chronic infection. However, during the removal of a fixed prosthetic component, the host bone may be damaged, making definitive prosthetic reimplantation difficult. OBJECTIVE: we present a series of patients treated for chronic periprosthetic hip infection with preservation of one fixed component. MATERIAL AND METHODS: this study included 12 patients with hip arthroplasty and chronic periprosthetic infection scheduled for one or two-stage partial replacement with retention of a fixed component between June 2015 and January 2021. The minimum follow-up period was 2 years (mean, 4.08 years). None of the 12 patients in this series was lost to follow-up. We evaluated the evolution through clinical examination, Harris Hip Score, laboratory and radiological studies. RESULTS: at a mean follow-up of 4.08 years after prosthetic reimplantation, two of the 12 patients had recurrence of infection (16.6%), and the mean Harris hip score reached 63.6 points at the last follow-up assessment. CONCLUSIONS: fixed implant preservation may be an acceptable option for patients with chronic periprosthetic hip infection when removal of the fixed component results in significant bone loss compromising future reimplantation. However, more studies are required on this treatment method.


INTRODUCCIÓN: la revisión total en una o dos etapas se considera el estándar de oro para el tratamiento de la artroplastía de cadera con infección crónica. Sin embargo, durante la extracción de un componente protésico fijo, el hueso del huésped puede dañarse, lo que dificulta la reimplantación definitiva de la prótesis. OBJETIVO: presentamos una serie de pacientes tratados por infección crónica periprotésica de cadera con la preservación de un componente fijo. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: este estudio retrospectivo incluyó a 12 pacientes con artroplastía de cadera e infección periprotésica crónica programadas para revisión parcial en una o dos etapas con retención de un componente fijo entre Junio de 2015 y Enero de 2021. El período mínimo de seguimiento fue de dos años (media, 4.08 años). Ninguno de los 12 pacientes de esta serie se perdió en el seguimiento. Evaluamos la evolución a través del examen clínico, puntuación de cadera de Harris, estudios de laboratorio y radiológicos. RESULTADOS: con un seguimiento promedio de 4.08 años después de la reimplantación protésica, dos de los 12 pacientes presentaron recurrencia de la infección (16.6%) y la puntuación media de Harris en la cadera alcanzó 63.6 puntos en la última evaluación de seguimiento. CONCLUSIONES: la preservación del implante fijo puede ser una opción aceptable para pacientes estrictamente seleccionados con infección periprotésica crónica de cadera cuando la extracción del componente fijo produce una pérdida ósea significativa que compromete la reconstrucción futura. Se necesitan más estudios sobre este método de tratamiento.


Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip , Hip Prosthesis , Prosthesis-Related Infections , Reoperation , Humans , Prosthesis-Related Infections/etiology , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/methods , Aged , Chronic Disease , Hip Prosthesis/adverse effects , Follow-Up Studies , Retrospective Studies , Adult , Recurrence
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL