INTRODUCTION: The aim of our study was to compare the effectiveness of high-pressure pulsatile lavage and low-pressure lavage in patients with an orthopaedic implant infection treated with open débridement followed by antibiotic treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with an orthopaedic implant infection requiring open débridement from January 2008 to August 2009 were randomized prospectively to a low-pressure or a high-pressure pulsatile lavage arm. Relevant information about demographics, co-morbidity, type of implant, microbiology data, surgical treatment, and outcome were recorded. Comparison of proportions was made using χ(2) test or Fisher exact test when necessary. The Kaplan-Meier survival method was used to estimate the cumulative probability of treatment failure from open débridement to the last visit. RESULTS:Seventy-nine patients were included. There were no differences between the main characteristics between both groups (p > 0.05). Mean (SD) age of the whole cohort was 70.2 (11.9) years. There were 46 infections on knee prosthesis, 17 on hip prosthesis, 7 on hip hemiarthroplasties and 9 on osteosynthesis devices. There were 69 acute post-surgical infections, 8 acute haematogenous infections and 2 chronic infections. The most common microorganisms isolated were coagulase-negative Staphylococci in 34 cases, Staphylococcus aureus in 26 and Escherichia coli in 19 cases. There were 30 polymicrobial infections. A total of 42 and 37 patients were randomized to a high-pressure pulsatile or a low-pressure lavage, respectively. There was no difference in the success rate between both arms (80.9 vs. 86.5%, p = 0.56). CONCLUSION: The use of a high-pressure pulsatile lavage during open débridement of implant infections had a similar success rate as a low-pressure lavage.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The aim of our study was to compare the effectiveness of high-pressure pulsatile lavage and low-pressure lavage in patients with an orthopaedic implant infection treated with open débridement followed by antibiotic treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with an orthopaedic implant infection requiring open débridement from January 2008 to August 2009 were randomized prospectively to a low-pressure or a high-pressure pulsatile lavage arm. Relevant information about demographics, co-morbidity, type of implant, microbiology data, surgical treatment, and outcome were recorded. Comparison of proportions was made using χ(2) test or Fisher exact test when necessary. The Kaplan-Meier survival method was used to estimate the cumulative probability of treatment failure from open débridement to the last visit. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients were included. There were no differences between the main characteristics between both groups (p > 0.05). Mean (SD) age of the whole cohort was 70.2 (11.9) years. There were 46 infections on knee prosthesis, 17 on hip prosthesis, 7 on hip hemiarthroplasties and 9 on osteosynthesis devices. There were 69 acute post-surgical infections, 8 acute haematogenous infections and 2 chronic infections. The most common microorganisms isolated were coagulase-negative Staphylococci in 34 cases, Staphylococcus aureus in 26 and Escherichia coli in 19 cases. There were 30 polymicrobial infections. A total of 42 and 37 patients were randomized to a high-pressure pulsatile or a low-pressure lavage, respectively. There was no difference in the success rate between both arms (80.9 vs. 86.5%, p = 0.56). CONCLUSION: The use of a high-pressure pulsatile lavage during open débridement of implant infections had a similar success rate as a low-pressure lavage.
Authors: Gill Norman; Ross A Atkinson; Tanya A Smith; Ceri Rowlands; Amber D Rithalia; Emma J Crosbie; Jo C Dumville Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-10-30