-
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg · May 2018
Outcome of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections caused by pathogens resistant to biofilm-active antibiotics: results from a prospective cohort study.
- Doruk Akgün, Carsten Perka, Andrej Trampuz, and Nora Renz.
- Corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. doruk.akguen@charite.de.
- Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018 May 1; 138 (5): 635-642.
BackgroundPeriprosthetic joint infections (PJI) caused by pathogens, for which no biofilm-active antibiotics are available, are often referred to as difficult-to-treat (DTT). However, it is unclear whether the outcome of DTT PJI is worse than those of non-DTT PJI. We evaluated the outcome of DTT and non-DTT PJI in a prospective cohort treated with a two-stage exchange according to a standardized algorithm.MethodsPatients with hip and knee PJI from 2013 to 2015 were prospectively included and followed up for ≥ 2 years. DTT PJI was defined as growth of microorganism(s) resistant to all available biofilm-active antibiotics. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to compare the probability of infection-free survival between DTT and non-DTT PJI and the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated.ResultsAmong 163 PJI, 30 (18.4%) were classified as DTT and 133 (81.6%) as non-DTT. At a mean follow-up of 33 months (range 24-48 months), the overall treatment success was 82.8%. The infection-free survival rate at 2 years was 80% (95% CI 61-90%) for DTT PJI and 84% (95% CI 76-89%) for non-DTT PJI (p = 0.61). The following mean values were longer in DTT PJI than in non-DTT PJI: hospital stay (45 vs. 28 days; p < 0.001), prosthesis-free interval (89 vs. 58 days; p < 0.001) and duration of antimicrobial treatment (151 vs. 117 days; p = 0.003).ConclusionsThe outcome of DTT and non-DTT PJI was similar (80-84%), however, at the cost of longer hospital stay, longer prosthesis-free interval and longer antimicrobial treatment. It remains unclear whether patients undergoing two-stage exchange with a long interval need biofilm-active antibiotics. Further studies need to evaluate the outcome in patients treated with biofilm-active antibiotics undergoing short vs. long interval.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.