Literature DB >> 27834161

Periprosthetic Infection following Primary Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: The Impact of Limiting the Postoperative Surveillance Period.

Virginia R Roth1, Robyn Mitchell2, Julie Vachon2, Stéphanie Alexandre2, Kanchana Amaratunga2, Stephanie Smith3, Mary Vearncombe4, Ian Davis5, Dominik Mertz6, Elizabeth Henderson7, Michael John8, Lynn Johnston5, Camille Lemieux9, Linda Pelude2, Denise Gravel2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND Hip and knee arthroplasty infections are associated with considerable healthcare costs. The merits of reducing the postoperative surveillance period from 1 year to 90 days have been debated. OBJECTIVES To report the first pan-Canadian hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates and to describe the implications of a shorter (90-day) postoperative surveillance period. METHODS Prospective surveillance for infection following hip and knee arthroplasty was conducted by hospitals participating in the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program (CNISP) using standard surveillance definitions. RESULTS Overall hip and knee PJI rates were 1.64 and 1.52 per 100 procedures, respectively. Deep incisional and organ-space hip and knee PJI rates were 0.96 and 0.71, respectively. In total, 93% of hip PJIs and 92% of knee PJIs were identified within 90 days, with a median time to detection of 21 days. However, 11%-16% of deep incisional and organ-space infections were not detected within 90 days. This rate was reduced to 3%-4% at 180 days post procedure. Anaerobic and polymicrobial infections had the shortest median time from procedure to detection (17 and 18 days, respectively) compared with infections due to other microorganisms, including Staphylococcus aureus. CONCLUSIONS PJI rates were similar to those reported elsewhere, although differences in national surveillance systems limit direct comparisons. Our results suggest that a postoperative surveillance period of 90 days will detect the majority of PJIs; however, up to 16% of deep incisional and organ-space infections may be missed. Extending the surveillance period to 180 days could allow for a better estimate of disease burden. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:147-153.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27834161     DOI: 10.1017/ice.2016.256

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol        ISSN: 0899-823X            Impact factor:   3.254


  11 in total

1.  Does performing total joint arthroplasty in the afternoon or evening increase the risk of prosthetic joint infection?

Authors:  Fatih Yıldız; Orkhan Aliyev; Tunay Erden; Nurdan Güngören; Vahdet Uçan; İbrahim Tuncay
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-11-08       Impact factor: 3.067

2.  Prosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty caused by Lactobacillus paracasei.

Authors:  Charlie Tan; James L Howard; Lise Bondy
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2020-11-02       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  The economic impact of periprosthetic infection in total hip arthroplasty

Authors:  Jason Akindolire; Mina W. Morcos; Jacquelyn D. Marsh; James L. Howard; Brent A. Lanting; Edward M. Vasarhelyi
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2020-01-29       Impact factor: 2.089

4.  Limiting the Surveillance Period to 90 Days Misses a Large Portion of Infections in the First Year After Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Stefano Muscatelli; Huiyong Zheng; Aditya Muralidharan; Viktor Tollemar; Brian R Hallstrom
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2022-05-30

5.  Trends in health care-associated infections in acute care hospitals in Canada: an analysis of repeated point-prevalence surveys.

Authors:  Robyn Mitchell; Geoffrey Taylor; Wallis Rudnick; Stephanie Alexandre; Kathryn Bush; Leslie Forrester; Charles Frenette; Bonny Granfield; Denise Gravel-Tropper; Jennifer Happe; Michael John; Christian Lavallee; Allison McGeer; Dominik Mertz; Linda Pelude; Michelle Science; Andrew Simor; Stephanie Smith; Kathryn N Suh; Joseph Vayalumkal; Alice Wong; Kanchana Amaratunga
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2019-09-09       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Relationship Between Staphylococcus aureus Carriage and Surgical Site Infections Following Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in the South Asian Population: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Syed H Mufarrih; Nada Q Qureshi; Anum Sadruddin; Pervaiz Hashmi; Syed Faisal Mahmood; Afia Zafar; Shahryar Noordin
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2018-06-06

7.  Surgical site infection surveillance following total knee arthroplasty: Tertiary care hospital experience.

Authors:  Irfan Ashraf; Yasir Mohib; Obada Hasan; Amina Malik; Khabir Ahmad; Shahryar Noordin
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2018-04-10

8.  Current and Future Burden of Periprosthetic Joint Infection from National Claim Database.

Authors:  Hong Seok Kim; Jung Wee Park; Sun Young Moon; Young Kyun Lee; Yong Chan Ha; Kyung Hoi Koo
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2020-12-21       Impact factor: 2.153

9.  The economic impact of periprosthetic infection in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Mina W Morcos; Paul Kooner; Jackie Marsh; James Howard; Brent Lanting; Edward Vasarhelyi
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 2.089

10. 

Authors:  Charlie Tan; James L Howard; Lise Bondy
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 8.262

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.