Hosseinali Hadi1,2,3,4,5, Mahmmud Jabalameli1,2,3,4,5, Abolfazl Bagherifard1,2,3,4,5, Ehsanollah Ghaznavi-Rad1,2,3,4,5, Ahmadreza Behrouzi1,2,3,4,5, Ali Joorabchi1,2,3,4,5, Amir Azimi1,2,3,4,5. 1. Research performed at Bone and Joint Reconstruction Center, Vali-Asr Hospital, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran. 2. Orthopedic Department, Arak university of medical sciences, Arak, Iran. 3. Bone and oint econstruction esearch enter, Shafa Yahyaian Hospital, Iran university of medical sciences, Tehran, Iran. 4. Department of icrobiology and mmunology, Arak University of edical ciences, Arak, Iran. 5. Orthopedic Surgery, Valiasr Hospital, Arak University of Medical Sciences.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection is a devastating complication of total joint arthroplasty. It seems that the patient's skin, nose, throat, and urine are important sites for microbial colonization. Colonization with staphylococcus aureus, especially methicillin resistant increases the risk of periprosthetic joint infection. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of staphylococcus aureus colonization in patients candidate for arthroplasty in central Iran as well as cost-effectiveness of decolonization program for prevention of post-arthroplasty infection. METHODS: A total of 226 patient candidates for total joint arthroplasty were enrolled in this prospective cross-sectional study between January 2014 and January 2016. Specimens from nose, throat, groin skin, and urine were sent for bacteriologic culture and sensitivity test. Analysis cost-effectiveness was then performed for decolonization programme. RESULTS: Patients had positive cultures from nose (15.9%), throat (4.4%), groin skin (3.1%), and urine (0.9%). In general, 20.8% of the patients had positive cultures for staphylococcus aureus, among whom, 1.8% were methicillin resistant. Based on cost-effectiveness analysis, decolonization program leads to 80% reduction in costs. CONCLUSION: According to our results, although colonization with methicillin sensitive staphylococcus aureus in patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty is lower than other studies but colonization with methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus is similar to others. Also, decolonization programme in these patients was found to be very cost-effective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection is a devastating complication of total joint arthroplasty. It seems that the patient's skin, nose, throat, and urine are important sites for microbial colonization. Colonization with staphylococcus aureus, especially methicillin resistant increases the risk of periprosthetic joint infection. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of staphylococcus aureus colonization in patients candidate for arthroplasty in central Iran as well as cost-effectiveness of decolonization program for prevention of post-arthroplasty infection. METHODS: A total of 226 patient candidates for total joint arthroplasty were enrolled in this prospective cross-sectional study between January 2014 and January 2016. Specimens from nose, throat, groin skin, and urine were sent for bacteriologic culture and sensitivity test. Analysis cost-effectiveness was then performed for decolonization programme. RESULTS: Patients had positive cultures from nose (15.9%), throat (4.4%), groin skin (3.1%), and urine (0.9%). In general, 20.8% of the patients had positive cultures for staphylococcus aureus, among whom, 1.8% were methicillin resistant. Based on cost-effectiveness analysis, decolonization program leads to 80% reduction in costs. CONCLUSION: According to our results, although colonization with methicillin sensitive staphylococcus aureus in patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty is lower than other studies but colonization with methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus is similar to others. Also, decolonization programme in these patients was found to be very cost-effective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Entities:
Keywords:
Decolonization; Periprosthetic joint infection; Staphylococcus aureus; Total hip arthroplasty; Total knee arthroplasty
Authors: M S Barakate; Y X Yang; S H Foo; A M Vickery; C A Sharp; L D Fowler; J P Harris; R H West; C Macleod; R A Benn Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: Sara E Cosgrove; George Sakoulas; Eli N Perencevich; Mitchell J Schwaber; Adolf W Karchmer; Yehuda Carmeli Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2002-12-13 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: J Maudsley; S P Stone; C C Kibbler; S R Iliffe; S J Conaty; B D Cookson; G J Duckworth; A Johnson; P G Wallace Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: Joel T Fishbain; Joseph C Lee; Honghung D Nguyen; Jeffery A Mikita; Cecilia P Mikita; Catherine F T Uyehara; Duane R Hospenthal Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.254