Postoperative antibiotic treatment does not lower re-revision rate in presumed aseptic hip and knee revision arthroplasties with unexpected positive intraoperative cultures - a matched cohort study.

IF 1.8 Q3 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Journal of Bone and Joint Infection Pub Date : 2025-03-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.5194/jbji-10-51-2025
Sebastian Simon, Marjan Wouthuyzen-Bakker, Susana Gardete Hartmann, Jennyfer A Mitterer, Sujeesh Sebastian, Stephanie Huber, Bernhard J H Frank, Jochen G Hofstaetter
{"title":"Postoperative antibiotic treatment does not lower re-revision rate in presumed aseptic hip and knee revision arthroplasties with unexpected positive intraoperative cultures - a matched cohort study.","authors":"Sebastian Simon, Marjan Wouthuyzen-Bakker, Susana Gardete Hartmann, Jennyfer A Mitterer, Sujeesh Sebastian, Stephanie Huber, Bernhard J H Frank, Jochen G Hofstaetter","doi":"10.5194/jbji-10-51-2025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aims</b>: It remains unclear if postoperative antibiotic (AB) treatment is advantageous in presumed aseptic revision arthroplasties of the hip (rTHA) and knee (rTKA) with unexpected positive intraoperative cultures (UPIC). The aim of this study is to evaluate if there is a difference in the re-revision rate in patients with UPIC when treated with postoperative AB or when postoperative AB is withheld. <b>Methods</b>: In this retrospective matched cohort study we compared the re-revision rates in rTHA and rTKA with (AB group: 45 rTHA, 25 rTKA) and without (non-AB group: 45 rTHA, 25 rTKA) AB treatment in patients with UPIC. Baseline covariates for matching were the microorganism (likely or not likely to be a contaminant), patient demographics, joint, revision type, surgical site infection score, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, serum C-reactive protein (CRP). <b>Results</b>: After a median follow-up of 4.1 (inter-quartile range, IQR: 2.9-5.5) years after rTHA and rTKA, the re-revision rate between the AB group and the non-AB group was 14.3 % versus 15.7 % (<i>P</i>=0.81). In the AB group, 4.3 % (3/70) of patients underwent revision due to septic complications compared to 5.7 % (4/70) in the non-AB group (<i>P</i>=0.69). None of the patients were diagnosed with a confirmed periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) according to the PJI diagnostic criteria of European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS). In 22/70 (31.4 %) of the patients in the AB group and in 15/70 (21.4 %) of the patients in the non-AB group, a diagnosis of \"infection likely\" was made according to the EBJIS criteria (<i>P</i>=0.18). All UPICs with low virulent microorganisms were considered to be contamination (coagulase-negative <i>Staphylococci</i>; <i>Corynebacterium</i>; anaerobic Gram-positive bacilli and cocci, e.g., <i>Finegoldia magna</i>, <i>Cutibacterium acnes</i>). <b>Conclusion</b>: Postoperative AB treatment did not result in a decreased re-revision rate in patients with UPIC in presumed aseptic rTHA and rTKA. Patients diagnosed with pathogens classified as a likely contaminant can be safely ignored.</p>","PeriodicalId":15271,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection","volume":"10 2","pages":"51-59"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11920627/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/jbji-10-51-2025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: It remains unclear if postoperative antibiotic (AB) treatment is advantageous in presumed aseptic revision arthroplasties of the hip (rTHA) and knee (rTKA) with unexpected positive intraoperative cultures (UPIC). The aim of this study is to evaluate if there is a difference in the re-revision rate in patients with UPIC when treated with postoperative AB or when postoperative AB is withheld. Methods: In this retrospective matched cohort study we compared the re-revision rates in rTHA and rTKA with (AB group: 45 rTHA, 25 rTKA) and without (non-AB group: 45 rTHA, 25 rTKA) AB treatment in patients with UPIC. Baseline covariates for matching were the microorganism (likely or not likely to be a contaminant), patient demographics, joint, revision type, surgical site infection score, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, serum C-reactive protein (CRP). Results: After a median follow-up of 4.1 (inter-quartile range, IQR: 2.9-5.5) years after rTHA and rTKA, the re-revision rate between the AB group and the non-AB group was 14.3 % versus 15.7 % (P=0.81). In the AB group, 4.3 % (3/70) of patients underwent revision due to septic complications compared to 5.7 % (4/70) in the non-AB group (P=0.69). None of the patients were diagnosed with a confirmed periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) according to the PJI diagnostic criteria of European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS). In 22/70 (31.4 %) of the patients in the AB group and in 15/70 (21.4 %) of the patients in the non-AB group, a diagnosis of "infection likely" was made according to the EBJIS criteria (P=0.18). All UPICs with low virulent microorganisms were considered to be contamination (coagulase-negative Staphylococci; Corynebacterium; anaerobic Gram-positive bacilli and cocci, e.g., Finegoldia magna, Cutibacterium acnes). Conclusion: Postoperative AB treatment did not result in a decreased re-revision rate in patients with UPIC in presumed aseptic rTHA and rTKA. Patients diagnosed with pathogens classified as a likely contaminant can be safely ignored.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信