Jesse D. De Groot, R. Brokelman, B. Fransen, Tim U. Jiya, Dean F. M. Pakvis
{"title":"Antibiotic prophylaxis before tissue biopsy has no effect on culture results in presumed aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty","authors":"Jesse D. De Groot, R. Brokelman, B. Fransen, Tim U. Jiya, Dean F. M. Pakvis","doi":"10.5194/jbji-9-67-2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Background: Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) is considered to be the gold standard for revision total hip arthroplasty (R-THA) due to the high incidence of prosthetic joint infection (PJI). To diagnose PJI, intraoperative tissue biopsies for culture are of particular importance. However, antibiotic interference could theoretically lead to less reliable culture results. Currently, there is no consensus on whether AP should be administered before or after tissue biopsy. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effect of AP timing on culture results and PJI rates in presumed aseptic R-THA. Methods: A retrospective single-center cohort study among 490 patients was performed; 61 patients received AP pre-incision, and 429 patients received AP post-biopsy. At least three intraoperative tissues were sampled for each patient and cultured for a minimum of 2 weeks. Minimum follow-up was 6 months. Epidemiological and clinical data (including culture results and incidence of PJI during follow-up) were gathered and analyzed. Results: Positive (4.9 % vs. 5.4 %, p=0.89) and contaminated culture results (23.0 % vs. 22.6 %, p=0.95) were not significantly different between pre-incisional and post-biopsy AP administration. Post-operative PJI incidence during follow-up was 1.6 % and 3.0 %, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.54). Conclusion: Pre-incisional AP administration does not yield fewer culture results compared to post-biopsy AP administration. Although statistically not significant, PJI during follow-up was almost twice as high when AP was withheld until after tissue biopsy. Other literature also supports the additional protective benefit of pre-incisional AP. Therefore, we believe pre-incisional AP administration is preferable for presumed aseptic R-THA.\n","PeriodicalId":15271,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/jbji-9-67-2024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract. Background: Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) is considered to be the gold standard for revision total hip arthroplasty (R-THA) due to the high incidence of prosthetic joint infection (PJI). To diagnose PJI, intraoperative tissue biopsies for culture are of particular importance. However, antibiotic interference could theoretically lead to less reliable culture results. Currently, there is no consensus on whether AP should be administered before or after tissue biopsy. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effect of AP timing on culture results and PJI rates in presumed aseptic R-THA. Methods: A retrospective single-center cohort study among 490 patients was performed; 61 patients received AP pre-incision, and 429 patients received AP post-biopsy. At least three intraoperative tissues were sampled for each patient and cultured for a minimum of 2 weeks. Minimum follow-up was 6 months. Epidemiological and clinical data (including culture results and incidence of PJI during follow-up) were gathered and analyzed. Results: Positive (4.9 % vs. 5.4 %, p=0.89) and contaminated culture results (23.0 % vs. 22.6 %, p=0.95) were not significantly different between pre-incisional and post-biopsy AP administration. Post-operative PJI incidence during follow-up was 1.6 % and 3.0 %, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.54). Conclusion: Pre-incisional AP administration does not yield fewer culture results compared to post-biopsy AP administration. Although statistically not significant, PJI during follow-up was almost twice as high when AP was withheld until after tissue biopsy. Other literature also supports the additional protective benefit of pre-incisional AP. Therefore, we believe pre-incisional AP administration is preferable for presumed aseptic R-THA.