| Literature DB >> 33784991 |
Hélène Boclé1, Jean-Philippe Lavigne2,3, Nicolas Cellier4, Julien Crouzet1, Pascal Kouyoumdjian4, Albert Sotto1,2, Paul Loubet5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy in Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic bone and joint infection has not been established. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of early and late intravenous-to-oral antibiotic switch on treatment failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all adult cases of S. aureus prosthetic bone and joint or orthopedic metalware-associated infection between January 2008 and December 2015 in a French university hospital. The primary outcome was treatment failure defined as the recurrence of S. aureus prosthetic bone and joint or orthopedic metalware-associated infection at any time during or after the first line of medical and surgical treatment within 2 years of follow-up. A Cox model was created to assess risk factors for treatment failure.Entities:
Keywords: Intravenous antibiotic treatment; Oral antibiotic treatment; Prosthetic bone and joint infections; Staphylococcus aureus
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33784991 PMCID: PMC8008605 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04191-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Flow chart of the study. BJI: Bone and joint infections
Type of prosthetic joint infection and surgical management according to type of prothesis/orthopedic material
| Total hip replacement | Total knee replacement | Total ankle replacement | Nail | Plate/Screw and/or pin | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 38 | 13 | 2 | 16 | 71 | |
| 22 (58%) | 8 (62%) | 1 (50%) | 8 (50%) | 53 (75%) | |
| 74 (12.7) {39–96} | 68 (14.7) {37–90} | 54 | 60 (23.6) {21–89} | 51.8 (19.5) {19–93} | |
| 2.8 (2.2) {0–9} | 2.5 (1.7) {0–6} | 0.5 (0.7) {0–1} | 2.5 (2.0) {0–6} | 1.6 (1.9) {0–8} | |
| 28 (74%) | 11 (85%) | 2 (100%) | 11 (69%) | 61 (86%) | |
| Type I | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 (13%) | 3 |
| Type II | 20 (53%) | 1 (8%) | 0 | 8 (50%) | 58 |
| Type III | 13 (34%) | 2 (15%) | 0 | 6 (38%) | 51 |
| Type IV | 5 (13%) | 10 (63%) | 2 (100%) | 0 | 28 |
| Intra-articular washa | 11 (29%) | 5 (39%) | 1 (50%) | 6 (38%) | 30 (42%) |
| One-stage revision | 4 (11%) | 1 (8%) | 0 | 4 (25%) | 4 (6%) |
| Two-stage revision | 12 (11%) | 6 (46%) | 0 | 0 | 3 (4%) |
| Material removal | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 (38%) | 34 (48%) |
| Inserts change | 11 (29%) | 1 (8%) | 1 (50%) | 0 | 0 |
| 2 (5.3%) | 5 (38.5%) | 0 | 2 (12.5%) | 3 (4%) | |
aopen debridement without exchange of modular components
References: [7, 8]
Characteristics of patients and management according to the treatment outcome
| Failure n(%) | ||
|---|---|---|
| 0.97 | ||
| Male | 8/92 (8.7) | |
| Female | 4/48 (8.3) | |
| 0.001 | ||
| Total hip replacement | 2/38 (5.3) | |
| Total knee replacement | 5/13 (38.5) | |
| Total ankle replacement | 0/2 (0) | |
| All prosthesis | 7/53 (13.2) | |
| Intramedullary nailing | 2/16 (12.5) | |
| Plate/screw/pin | 3/71 (4.2) | |
| 0.33 | ||
| Intra-articular washa | 6 (11.3) | |
| One-stage revision | 2 (15.4) | |
| Two-stage revision | 3 (14.3) | |
| Material removal | 1 (2.5) | |
| Mobile inserts change | 0 (0) | |
| Type I | 0/5(0) | |
| Type II | 2/58 (3.5) | |
| Type III | 2/51 (4) | |
| Type IV | 6/28 (21.5) | |
| Infection by inoculation | 9/115 (7.8) | |
| 0.01 | ||
| | 6/113 (5.3) | |
| | 6/27 (22.2) | |
| 0.15 | ||
| Empiric therapy following guidelines | 6/104 (5.7) | |
| Empiric therapy not following guidelines | 6/26 (16.6) | |
| 0.47 | ||
| ≤ 5 days | 9/119 (7.5) | |
| > 5 days | 3/21 (14.2) | |
| 0.42 | ||
| Rifampicin + Ofloxacin | 6/88 (6.8) | |
| Rifampicin + Cotrimoxazole | 2/21 (4.8) | |
| Rifampicin + another antibiotic | 2/8 (25.0) | |
| Combination without rifampicin | 3/22 (13.6) | |
| 0.17 | ||
| Diabetes mellitus | 2/21 (9.5) | |
| Obesity | 4/24 (16.7) | |
| Chronic renal failure | 1/12 (8.3) | |
| Cancer, history of radiotherapy, immunosuppressive therapy | 0/25 (0) |
aopen debridement without exchange of modular components
References [4, 5]