Literature DB >> 36254212

Recurrent Failures After 2-Stage Exchanges are Secondary to New Organisms Not Previously Covered by Antibiotics.

Fortune J Egbulefu1, JaeWon Yang2, John C Segreti1, Scott M Sporer1, Antonia F Chen3, Matthew S Austin4, Craig J Della Valle1.   

Abstract

Background: Prior studies have shown that the majority of re-infections following two-stage revisions are due to organisms different from the initial organisms identified. It remains unknown whether these new organisms were susceptible to the antibiotics given (indicating the patient likely developed another infection following successful treatment) or not susceptible (indicating these organisms may have been initially present, but were not identified, and thus, inadequately treated). The purpose of this study was to determine if bacteria identified at time of re-infection following two-stage revisions were susceptible to the antibiotics administered during treatment of the index infection, in order to understand if these are new infections or from organisms that were present but not initially identified.
Methods: Thirty failures (19 knees and 11 hips) following two-stage revisions from four institutions were identified. Cultures and antibiotic sensitivities were used to determine whether the re-infectious organisms were new and if they were susceptible to the antibiotics initially given.
Results: Twenty-five (83.3%) re-infections were due to new organisms. Of these re-infections from new organisms, 16 (64.0%) were susceptible to the antibiotics previously administered, suggesting they were new infections rather than persistent infections from organisms that were not detected during initial treatment. No statistically significant differences in demographics or time to revision were observed when comparing by organism type (new vs. repeat) or by antibiotic susceptibility. Conclusions: Failures following two-stage revisions are frequently due to organisms different than those identified prior to two-stage revision and are likely new infections rather than persistent infections from undetected organisms.
© 2022 The Authors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Antibiotic sensitivities; Antibiotic susceptibility; Periprosthetic joint infection; Recurrent infection; Two-stage exchange

Year:  2022        PMID: 36254212      PMCID: PMC9568676          DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2022.07.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroplast Today        ISSN: 2352-3441


  42 in total

1.  Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030.

Authors:  Steven Kurtz; Kevin Ong; Edmund Lau; Fionna Mowat; Michael Halpern
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Recurrent periprosthetic joint infection: persistent or new infection?

Authors:  Benjamin Zmistowski; Matthew W Tetreault; Pouya Alijanipour; Antonia F Chen; Craig J Della Valle; Javad Parvizi
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2013-04-12       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Periprosthetic joint infection increases the risk of one-year mortality.

Authors:  Benjamin Zmistowski; Joseph A Karam; Joel B Durinka; David S Casper; Javad Parvizi
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2013-12-18       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Next-generation sequencing for diagnosis of infection: is more sensitive really better?

Authors:  Allison J Rao; Ian S MacLean; Amanda J Naylor; Grant E Garrigues; Nikhil N Verma; Gregory P Nicholson
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2019-10-13       Impact factor: 3.019

5.  The Effectiveness of Repeat Two-Stage Revision for the Treatment of Recalcitrant Total Knee Arthroplasty Infection.

Authors:  Iman Vadiee; David J Backstein
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Two-stage total hip arthroplasty: how often does it control methicillin-resistant infection?

Authors:  Fay Leung; Corey J Richards; Donald S Garbuz; Bassam A Masri; Clive P Duncan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  Diagnosis and Management of Fungal Periprosthetic Joint Infections.

Authors:  James Nace; Ahmed Siddiqi; Carl T Talmo; Antonia F Chen
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2019-09-15       Impact factor: 3.020

8.  Prolonged bacterial culture to identify late periprosthetic joint infection: a promising strategy.

Authors:  Peter Schäfer; Bernd Fink; Dieter Sandow; Andreas Margull; Irina Berger; Lars Frommelt
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 9.079

9.  Periprosthetic Joint Infection With Fungal Pathogens.

Authors:  Timothy S Brown; Stephen M Petis; Douglas R Osmon; Tad M Mabry; Daniel J Berry; Arlen D Hanssen; Matthew P Abdel
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  The Journey of Cultures Taken During Revision Joint Arthroplasty: Preanalytical Phase.

Authors:  Kier M Blevins; Karan Goswami; Javad Parvizi
Journal:  J Bone Jt Infect       Date:  2019-05-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.