| Literature DB >> 35045839 |
Alexander Aichmair1,2, Bernhard J H Frank3, Gabriel Singer4, Sebastian Simon3, Martin Dominkus4,5, Jochen G Hofstaetter4,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, total hip arthroplasty via the direct anterior approach (DAA) has become more common. Little is known on the influence of the surgical approach on the microbiological spectrum and resistance pattern in periprosthetic hip joint infections. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the microbiological spectrum and resistance pattern in periprosthetic hip joint infections comparing the direct anterior versus lateral approach in a matched-cohort analysis at a single institution.Entities:
Keywords: Direct anterior approach; Joint infection; Lateral approach; Microorganism; Total hip arthroplasty
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35045839 PMCID: PMC8772206 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05037-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Flow-chart diagram of patient inclusion and exclusion
Details of the microbiological spectrum of the matched-cohort study population (n = 72)
| Overall ( | Anterior ( | Lateral ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | (31.9%) | 13 | (36.1%) | 10 | (27.8%) | 0.448 | |
| | |||||||
| 12 | (16.7%) | 5 | (13.9%) | 7 | (19.4%) | 0.527 | |
| | |||||||
| 9 | (12.5%) | 8 | (22.2%) | 1 | (2.8%) | ||
| 6 | (8.3%) | 2 | (5.6%) | 4 | (11.1%) | 0.674 | |
| 5 | (6.9%) | 2 | (5.6%) | 3 | (8.3%) | 1.000 | |
| 4 | (5.6%) | 2 | (5.6%) | 2 | (5.6%) | 1.000 | |
| 4 | (5.6%) | 1 | (2.8%) | 3 | (8.3%) | 0.614 | |
| 3 | (4.2%) | 2 | (5.6%) | 1 | (2.8%) | 1.000 | |
| 3 | (4.2%) | 1 | (2.8%) | 2 | (5.6%) | 1.000 | |
| 3 | (4.2%) | 1 | (2.8%) | 2 | (5.6%) | 1.000 | |
| 3 | (4.2%) | 1 | (2.8%) | 2 | (5.6%) | 1.000 | |
| 2 | (2.8%) | 2 | (5.6%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 0.493 | |
| 2 | (2.8%) | 1 | (2.8%) | 1 | (2.8%) | 1.000 | |
| 2 | (2.8%) | 1 | (2.8%) | 1 | (2.8%) | 1.000 | |
| 2 | (2.8%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 2 | (5.6%) | 0.493 | |
| 1 | (1.4%) | 1 | (2.8%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 1.000 | |
| 1 | (1.4%) | 1 | (2.8%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 1.000 | |
| 1 | (1.4%) | 1 | (2.8%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 1.000 | |
| 1 | (1.4%) | 1 | (2.8%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 1.000 | |
| 1 | (1.4%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 1 | (2.8%) | 1.000 | |
| 1 | (1.4%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 1 | (2.8%) | 1.000 | |
| 1 | (1.4%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 1 | (2.8%) | 1.000 | |
| 1 | (1.4%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 1 | (2.8%) | 1.000 | |
| 1 | (1.4%) | 0 | (0.0%) | 1 | (2.8%) | 1.000 | |
Pathogens involved in polymicrobial infections (36 pathogens in 16 polymicrobial infections)
| 8 | (22.2%) | |
| | ||
| 4 | (11.1%) | |
| 3 | (8.3%) | |
| 3 | (8.3%) | |
| 2 | (5.6%) | |
| 2 | (5.6%) | |
| 2 | (5.6%) | |
| 2 | (5.6%) | |
| 1 | (2.8%) | |
| 1 | (2.8%) | |
| 1 | (2.8%) | |
| 1 | (2.8%) | |
| 1 | (2.8%) | |
| 1 | (2.8%) | |
| 1 | (2.8%) | |
| 1 | (2.8%) | |
| 1 | (2.8%) | |
| 1 | (2.8%) |
Fig. 2Microbiological spectrum in periprosthetic hip joint infections (matched-cohort, n = 72)
Details of the microbiological resistance pattern of the matched-cohort study population (n = 72)
| Amoxicillin | 13/13 | (100.0%) | 4/4 | (100.0%) | 0/3 | (0.0%) |
| Amoxicillin + Clavulanic Acid | 14/23 | (60.9%) | 3/12 | (25.0%) | 0/3 | (0.0%) |
| Ampicillin | 13/13 | (100.0%) | 1/1 | (100.0%) | 0/3 | (0.0%) |
| Ampicillin + Sulbactam | n/a | n/a | 1/1 | (100.0%) | 0/1 | (0.0%) |
| Cefazolin | 14/23 | (60.9%) | 3/12 | (25.0%) | 0/3 | (0.0%) |
| Cefepim | 13/22 | (59.1%) | 3/11 | (27.3%) | n/a | n/a |
| Cefotaxim | 22/22 | (100.0%) | 12/12 | (100.0%) | 6/6 | (100.0%) |
| Cefoxitin | 11/18 | (61.1%) | 3/8 | (37.5%) | n/a | n/a |
| Cefoxitin Screen | 8/10 | (80.0%) | 1/4 | (25.0%) | n/a | n/a |
| Ceftriaxon | 13/22 | (59.1%) | 3/11 | (27.3%) | n/a | n/a |
| Cefuroxim | 14/23 | (60.9%) | 3/12 | (25.0%) | n/a | n/a |
| Cephalexin | n/a | n/a | 1/1 | (100.0%) | n/a | n/a |
| Chloramphenicol | 1/14 | (7.1%) | 1/5 | (20.0%) | n/a | n/a |
| Ciprofloxacin | 8/21 | (38.1%) | 1/9 | (11.1%) | n/a | n/a |
| Clarithromycin | 15/23 | (65.2%) | 1/12 | (8.3%) | 1/4 | (25.0%) |
| Clindamycin | 11/23 | (47.8%) | 1/12 | (8.3%) | 0/6 | (0.0%) |
| Cotrimoxazol | 2/22 | (9.1%) | 0/10 | (0.0%) | n/a | n/a |
| Daptomycin | 2/22 | (9.1%) | 0/10 | (0.0%) | n/a | n/a |
| Doxycyclin | 9/23 | (39.1%) | 3/12 | (25.0%) | n/a | n/a |
| Erythromycin | 9/16 | (56.3%) | 1/5 | (20.0%) | 0/1 | (0.0%) |
| Fosfomycin | 3/23 | (13.0%) | 0/12 | (0.0%) | n/a | n/a |
| Fusidic Acid | 10/23 | (43.5%) | 0/12 | (0.0%) | n/a | n/a |
| Gentamicin | 5/22 | (22.7%) | 1/11 | (9.1%) | n/a | n/a |
| Imipenem | n/a | n/a | 1/1 | (100.0%) | 0/3 | (0.0%) |
| Levofloxacin | 8/22 | (36.4%) | 1/11 | (9.1%) | n/a | n/a |
| Linezolid | 1/22 | (4.5%) | 0/11 | (0.0%) | n/a | n/a |
| Mecillinam | 22/22 | (100.0%) | 12/12 | (100.0%) | 6/6 | (100.0%) |
| Meropenem | n/a | n/a | 1/1 | (100.0%) | 0/6 | (0.0%) |
| Moxifloxacin | 6/22 | (27.3%) | 1/12 | (8.3%) | n/a | n/a |
| Mupirocin | 1/4 | (25.0%) | 0/12 | (0.0%) | n/a | n/a |
| Oxacillin | 14/23 | (60.9%) | 3/12 | (25.0%) | n/a | n/a |
| Penicillin | n/a | n/a | 1/1 | (100.0%) | 0/6 | (0.0%) |
| Penicillin V | n/a | n/a | 1/1 | (100.0%) | n/a | n/a |
| Piperacillin | 22/22 | (100.0%) | 12/12 | (100.0%) | 6/6 | (100.0%) |
| Piperacillin + Tazobactam | n/a | n/a | 1/1 | (100.0%) | 1/3 | (33.3%) |
| Rifampicin | 1/22 | (4.5%) | 2/11 | (18.2%) | n/a | n/a |
| Teicoplanin | 6/19 | (31.6%) | 0/10 | (0.0%) | n/a | n/a |
| Tigecyclin | 0/16 | (0.0%) | 1/5 | (20.0%) | n/a | n/a |
| Vancomycin | 0/23 | (0.0%) | 0/10 | (0.0%) | 0/6 | (0.0%) |
Details of the microbiological resistance pattern of the matched-cohort study population (n = 72) for microbiological pathogens with an overall rate of more than 5%. Boxes highlighted in grey indicate a p-value < 0.05