International Organism Profile of Periprosthetic Total Hip and Knee Infections.

BACKGROUND: There is scarce literature describing pathogens responsible for periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) around the world. Therefore, we sought to describe periprosthetic joint infection causative organisms, rates of resistant organisms, and polymicrobial infections at 7 large institutions located in North/South America and Europe. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 654 periprosthetic hip (n = 361) and knee (n = 293) infections (January 2006 to October 2019) identified at Cleveland Clinic Ohio/Florida in the United States (US) (n = 159), Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires in Argentina (n = 99), Hospital Asociación Española in Uruguay (n = 130), Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital in the United Kingdom (UK) (n = 103), HELIOS Klinikum in Germany (n = 59), and Vreden Institute for Orthopedics in St. Petersburg, Russia (n = 104). Analyses were performed for the entire cohort, knees, and hips. Alpha was set at 0.05. RESULTS: Overall, the most frequent organisms identified were Staphylococcus aureus (24.8%) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (21.7%). The incidence of organisms resistant to at least one antibiotic was 58% and there was a significant difference between hips (62.3%) and knees (52.6%) (P = .014). Rates of resistant organisms among countries were 37.7% (US), 66.7% (Argentina), 71.5% (Uruguay), 40.8% (UK), 62.7% (Germany), and 77.9% (Russia) (P < .001). The overall incidence of polymicrobial infections was 9.3% and the rates across nations were 9.4% in the US, 11.1% in Argentina, 4.6% in Uruguay, 4.9% in UK, 11.9% in Germany, and 16.3% in Russia (P = .026). CONCLUSION: In the evaluated institutions, S aureus and S epidermidis accounted for almost 50% of all infections. The US and the UK had the lowest incidence of resistant organisms while Germany and Russia had the highest. The UK and Uruguay had the lowest rates of polymicrobial infections.

Estrategia restrictiva transfusional en cirugía ortopédica / Restrictive transfusion strategy in orthopedics surgery

Para pacientes que sufren artrosis avanzada o en algunos casos de fractura de cadera, la solución quirúrgica que se propone es la cirugía ortopédica mayor. Alguno de estos pacientes requerirá transfusión de sangre o hemocomponentes, o ambos, antes o después de la intervención. El abordaje de la anemia en el paciente quirúrgico puede hacerse de manera liberal, sujeto a la indicación de cada cirujano, o en el contexto de un protocolo restrictivo de reposición. Con este último el beneficio en el ahorro de recursos se acompaña además de un menor número de complicaciones relacionadas con la administración de sangre alogénica. El objetivo específico de nuestro trabajo fue comparar la estrategia liberal con la terapia restrictiva transfusional. Ingresaron en el estudio 498 pacientes; de estos, 261 (52,4%) en el año 2014 sometidos a terapia liberal y 237 (47,6%) en el año 2015 a quienes se aplicó el protocolo de terapia restrictiva transfusional. Se transfundieron menos individuos y se indicaron 55% menos volúmenes de sangre con la estrategia restrictiva. Se presentaron diez casos de reacción transfusional, todas de tipo febril, ocho en 2014 y dos en 2015. Con respecto a la evolución funcional no se comprobó diferencia entre ambos grupos. En nuestra experiencia y de acuerdo a la literatura consultada, la terapia restrictiva permite alcanzar iguales resultados funcionales, con menor riesgo para el paciente y ahorraría recursos al sistema.

Major orthopedic surgery is the surgical solution proposed for patients who suffer from advanced arthrosis or for some cases of hip fracture. Some of these patients will require blood and/or blood components transfusion before or after surgery. The approach to anemia in surgical patients may involve a liberal or a restrictive transfusion strategy, according to what each surgeon indicates, or observing the context of a restrictive protocol for blood replacement. The latter results in resource savings and in a reduction in the number of complications due to the administration of allogenic blood. The study aims to compare the liberal transfusion strategy to the restrictive strategy. 498 patients were included in the study, 261 of which (52.4%) were treated within the liberal strategy in 2014, and 237 (47.6%) were treated according to a restrictive transfusion protocol in 2015. A smaller number of individuals received blood transfusions and 55% less blood volumes were needed when the restrictive strategy was applied. Ten cases of transfusion reaction arose, all of them involving fever, 8 in 2014 and 2 in 2015. As to the functional evolution, no differences were found between the two groups. According to our study, and according to the global literature consulted, the restrictive therapy strategy enables the same functional results with a lower risk for patients, and it saves resources for the system.

Para pacientes com artrose avançada ou em alguns casos de fratura de quadril, a solução cirúrgica que se propõe é a cirurgia ortopédica maior. Algum destes pacientes necessitará transfusão de sangue e/ou hemocomponentes antes ou depois da intervenção. A abordagem da anemia no paciente cirúrgico pode ser feita de maneira liberal, sujeito à indicação de cada cirurgião, ou seguindo um protocolo restritivo de reposição. Utilizando este último se observa um beneficio não só na economia de recursos como também por um menor número de complicações relacionadas com a administração de sangue alogênica. O objetivo específico deste trabalho foi comparar a estratégia liberal com a terapia restritiva transfusional. Foram incluídos no estudo 498 pacientes, sendo 261 (52,4%) em 2014 submetidos à terapia liberal, e 237 (47,6%) em 2015 quando se utilizou o protocolo de terapia restritiva transfusional. Umnúmero menor de pacientes necessitou transfusão sanguínea e foram indicados 55% menos volumes de sangre com a estratégia restritiva. Foram registrados 10 casos de reação transfusional, todas do tipo febril, oito em 2014 e 2 em 2015. Com respeito à evolução funcional, não foram observadas diferenças entre ambos os grupos. Na nossa experiência e de acordo com a literatura consultada, a terapia restritiva permite alcançar resultados funcionais iguais commenos riscos para o paciente e pouparia recursos ao sistema.

The treatment of subtrochanteric nonunions with the long gamma nail: twenty-six patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of the long Gamma nail in the treatment of subtrochanteric nonunions. DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Multicenter (university teaching hospital, private centers). PATIENTS: Twenty-nine consecutive patients with noninfected sub-trochanteric nonunions following fractures previously treated with different methods of internal fixation. INTERVENTION: Implant removal, corrective osteotomy as needed (3 cases), fixation with a long Gamma nail, and cancellous bone grafting where bone loss (5 cases), all done in a 1-stage procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Analysis of clinic and radiologic results. Outcome assessment comparing the preinjury status with the status at a minimum follow-up of 24 months. RESULTS: At 2 years, 2 patients had died and another patient was lost to follow-up. Thus, 26 patients completed a median follow-up of 27 months (range 24-41 months). Twenty-three of these patients achieved union after 1 procedure (88% effective initial treatment), and 2 patients achieved union after 1 additional procedure each (exchange of a broken nail and bone grafting, respectively), rising the rate of union to 25 of the 26 patients (96%) in a mean of 7 months (range 4-11 months). The other patient remained ununited at the time of her final follow-up. In addition to the broken nail, breakage of the distal bolts occurred in 2 patients with less than 10 mm shortening. Twenty-one of the 26 patients (80.7%) were restored to their preinjury status. CONCLUSION: Subtrochanteric nonunion can be treated effectively using the long Gamma nail for skeletal stabilization, following removal of previously implanted devices.