Posts filed under ‘Infecciones osteo-articulares-musculares’

JULY 2018 – Pyogenic Arthritis of the Fingers and the Wrist: Can We Shorten Antimicrobial Treatment Duration?

Background.

Pyogenic arthritis of the small joints of the hand and wrist is a known but poorly described entity. The objective of this work was to characterize the clinical presentation, antimicrobial treatment, and surgical interventions of native small joint arthritis (SJA) treated in our tertiary center.

Methods.

According to predefined variables, medical records of adult patients with SJA treated in a Swiss university hospital between 2005 and 2013 were retrospectively analyzed.

Results.

The median age of 97 patients (101 joints) was 52 years (interquartile range [IQR], 38–68 years); 52% had no comorbidity. Small joint arthritis of the second and third fingers accounted for 53% of infections, with metacarpal-phalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints most commonly involved. Of 86 (89%) episodes with an exogenous source, 63 (65%) followed a trauma. The most commonly isolated microorganism was Staphylococcus aureus (38%), followed by β-hemolytic streptococci (13%) and Pasteurella spp (11%). Eighty-seven episodes (89 joints) in patients with follow-up examinations were included in treatment and outcome analyses. Up to 2 surgical interventions were required to cure infection in 74 (83%) joints. Median antimicrobial treatment duration was 14 days (IQR, 12–28 days), with amoxicillin/clavulanate administered in 74 (85%) episodes. At follow up, cure of infection was noted in all episodes and good functional outcome in 79% of episodes.

Conclusions.

Small joint arthritis shows considerable differences from clinical patterns reported for larger joints. In our

series, the outcome was good with no more than 2 surgical interventions and median treatment duration of 14 days in 79% of episodes.

FULL TEXT

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/4/2/ofx058/3090339

PDF (CLIC en DF)

Advertisements

July 15, 2018 at 4:05 pm

Influence of multidrug resistant organisms on the outcome of diabetic foot infection

International Journal of Infectious Diseases May 2018 V.70 P.10-14

Nese Saltoglu, Onder Ergonul, Necla Tulek, Mucahit Yemisen, Ayten Kadanali, Gul Karagoz, Ayse Batirel, Oznur Ak, Cagla Sonmezer, Haluk Eraksoy, Atahan Cagatay, Serkan Surme, Salih A. Nemli, Tuna Demirdal, Omer Coskun, Derya Ozturk, Nurgul Ceran, Filiz Pehlivanoglu, Gonul Sengoz, Turan Aslan, Yasemin Akkoyunlu, Oral Oncul, Hakan Ay, Lutfiye Mulazımoglu, Buket Erturk, Fatma Yilmaz, Gulsen Yoruk, Nuray Uzun, Funda Simsek, Taner Yildirmak, Kadriye Kart Yaşar, Meral Sonmezoglu, Yasar Küçükardali, Nazan Tuna, Oguz Karabay, Nail Ozgunes, Fatma Sargın, Turkish Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Diabetic Foot Infections Study Group

Objectives

We described the clinical outcomes of the diabetic patients who had foot infections with multidrug resistant organisms.

Methods

We included the patients with diabetic foot infections (DFI) from 19 centers, between May 2011 and December 2015. Infection was defined according to IDSA DFI guidelines. Patients with severe infection, complicated moderate infection were hospitalized. The patients were followed-up for 6 months after discharge.

Results

In total, 791 patients with DFI were included, 531(67%) were male, median age was 62 (19–90). Severe infection was diagnosed in 85 (11%) patients. Osteomyelitis was diagnosed in 291(36.8%) patients. 536 microorganisms were isolated, the most common microorganisms were S. aureus (20%), P. aeruginosa (19%) and E. coli (12%). Methicillin resistance (MR) rate among Staphylococcus aureus isolates was 31%. Multidrug resistant bacteria were detected in 21% of P. aeruginosa isolates. ESBL (+) Gram negative bacteria (GNB) was detected in 38% of E. coli and Klebsiella isolates. Sixty three patients (8%) were re-hospitalized. Of the 791 patiens, 127 (16%) had major amputation, and 24 (3%) patients died. In multivariate analysis, significant predictors for fatality were; dialysis (OR: 8.3, CI: 1.82–38.15, p = 0.006), isolation of Klebsiella spp. (OR:7.7, CI: 1.24–47.96, p = 0.028), and chronic heart failure (OR: 3, CI: 1.01–9.04, p = 0.05). MR Staphylococcus was detected in 21% of the rehospitalized patients, as the most common microorganism (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Among rehospitalized patients, methicillin resistant Staphylococcus infections was detected as the most common agent, and Klebsiella spp. infections were found to be significantly associated with fatality.

PDF

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(18)30049-3/pdf

July 14, 2018 at 7:19 pm

Antibiotic sensitivities of coagulase-negative staphylococci and Staphylococcus aureus in hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections: does this differ if patients meet the International Consensus Meeting Criteria?

Infect Drug Resist. 2018 Apr 13;11:539-546.

De Vecchi E1, George DA2, Romanò CL3, Pregliasco FE4,5, Mattina R6, Drago L1,4.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) are the main pathogens responsible for prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). As normal inhabitants of human skin, it is often difficult to define if they are contaminants, or if they have an active role in initiating infection. This study aims to evaluate differences in CoNS organisms (Staphylococcus hominis, Staphylococcus capitis, Staphylococcus haemolyticus, Staphylococcus warneri) and Staphylococcus aureus in terms of isolation rate and antimicrobial susceptibility from patients who met the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria for PJIs and those who did not.

METHODS:

Staphylococci isolates from January 2014 to December 2015 retrieved from patients undergoing revision joint arthroplasty were classified in accordance with criteria established by the ICM of Philadelphia.

RESULTS:

As per the consensus classification, 50 CoNS and 39 S. aureus infections were recognized as pathogens, while 16 CoNS and four S. aureus were considered as contaminants. Frequency of isolation of S. aureus was significantly higher in infected patients than in those without infection, while no significant differences were observed among CoNS. Resistance to levofloxacin, erythromycin, gentamicin trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, and rifampicin was significantly more frequent in S. haemolyticus than in the other species, as well as resistance to erythromycin and gentamicin in S. hominis. In comparison to S. aureus, CoNS were significantly more resistant to daptomycin and gentamicin and more susceptible to rifampicin.

CONCLUSION:

CoNS, other than Staphylococcus epidermidis, are frequently isolated from PJIs, and their infective role and antimicrobial susceptibility need to be assessed on an individual patient basis. S. haemolyticus seems to emerge as responsible for PJI in a large volume of patients, and its role needs to be further investigated, also considering its pattern of resistance.

PDF

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5905490/pdf/idr-11-539.pdf

 

June 10, 2018 at 11:59 am

REVIEW – Histopathology in Periprosthetic Joint Infection: When Will the Morphomolecular Diagnosis Be a Reality?

Biomed Res Int. 2018 May 13;2018:1412701.

Bori G1, McNally MA2, Athanasou N2.

Abstract

The presence of a polymorphonuclear neutrophil infiltrate in periprosthetic tissues has been shown to correlate closely with the diagnosis of septic implant failure. The histological criterion considered by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society to be diagnostic of periprosthetic joint infection is “greater than five neutrophils per high-power field in five high-power fields observed from histologic analysis of periprosthetic tissue at ×400 magnification.” Surgeons and pathologists should be aware of the qualifications introduced by different authors during the last years in the histological techniques, samples for histological study, cutoffs used for the diagnosis of infection, and types of patients studied. Recently, immunohistochemistry and histochemistry studies have appeared which suggest that the cutoff point of five polymorphonuclear neutrophils in five high-power fields is too high for the diagnosis of many periprosthetic joint infections. Therefore, morphomolecular techniques could help in the future to achieve a more reliable histological diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection.

PDF

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5971260/pdf/BMRI2018-1412701.pdf

 

June 10, 2018 at 11:56 am

Hip arthroscopy versus best conservative care for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (UK FASHIoN): a multicentre randomised controlled trial

The Lancet June 2, 2018 V.391 N.10136 P.2225–2235

Hip arthroscopy versus best conservative care for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (UK FASHIoN): a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Prof Damian R Griffin, MPhil’, Edward J Dickenson, MBChB, Peter D H Wall, PhD, Felix Achana, PhD, Prof Jenny L Donovan, PhD, James Griffin, MSc, Rachel Hobson, BA, Prof Charles E Hutchinson, MD, Marcus Jepson, PhD, Nick R Parsons, PhD, Prof Stavros Petrou, PhD, Alba Realpe, PhD, Joanna Smith, Prof Nadine E Foster, DPhil on behalf of the UK show FASHIoN Study Group†

Background

Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome is an important cause of hip pain in young adults. It can be treated by arthroscopic hip surgery, including reshaping the hip, or with physiotherapist-led conservative care. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of hip arthroscopy with best conservative care.

Methods

UK FASHIoN is a pragmatic, multicentre, assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial, done at 23 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. We enrolled patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome who presented at these hospitals. Eligible patients were at least 16 years old, had hip pain with radiographic features of cam or pincer morphology but no osteoarthritis, and were believed to be likely to benefit from hip arthroscopy. Patients with bilateral femoroacetabular impingement syndrome were eligible; only the most symptomatic hip was randomly assigned to treatment and followed-up. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive hip arthroscopy or personalised hip therapy (an individualised, supervised, and progressive physiotherapist-led programme of conservative care). Randomisation was stratified by impingement type and recruiting centre and was done by research staff at each hospital, using a central telephone randomisation service. Patients and treating clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation, but researchers who collected the outcome assessments and analysed the results were masked. The primary outcome was hip-related quality of life, as measured by the patient-reported International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) 12 months after randomisation, and analysed in all eligible participants who were allocated to treatment (the intention-to-treat population). This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN64081839, and is closed to recruitment.

Findings

Between July 20, 2012, and July 15, 2016, we identified 648 eligible patients and recruited 348 participants: 171 participants were allocated to receive hip arthroscopy and 177 to receive personalised hip therapy. Three further patients were excluded from the trial after randomisation because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Follow-up at the primary outcome assessment was 92% (319 of 348 participants). At 12 months after randomisation, mean iHOT-33 scores had improved from 39·2 (SD 20·9) to 58·8 (27·2) for participants in the hip arthroscopy group, and from 35·6 (18·2) to 49·7 (25·5) in the personalised hip therapy group. In the primary analysis, the mean difference in iHOT-33 scores, adjusted for impingement type, sex, baseline iHOT-33 score, and centre, was 6·8 (95% CI 1·7–12·0) in favour of hip arthroscopy (p=0·0093). This estimate of treatment effect exceeded the minimum clinically important difference (6·1 points). There were 147 patient-reported adverse events (in 100 [72%] of 138 patients) in the hip arthroscopy group) versus 102 events (in 88 [60%] of 146 patients) in the personalised hip therapy group, with muscle soreness being the most common of these (58 [42%] vs 69 [47%]). There were seven serious adverse events reported by participating hospitals. Five (83%) of six serious adverse events in the hip arthroscopy group were related to treatment, and the one in the personalised hip therapy group was not. There were no treatment-related deaths, but one patient in the hip arthroscopy group developed a hip joint infection after surgery.

Interpretation

Hip arthroscopy and personalised hip therapy both improved hip-related quality of life for patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Hip arthroscopy led to a greater improvement than did personalised hip therapy, and this difference was clinically significant. Further follow-up will reveal whether the clinical benefits of hip arthroscopy are maintained and whether it is cost effective in the long term.

Funding

The Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute of Health Research.

FULL TEXT

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31202-9/fulltext?dgcid=raven_jbs_etoc_email

PDF

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(18)31202-9.pdf

 

The Lancet June 2, 2018 V.391 N.10136

COMMENT – Hip arthroscopy: an evidence-based approach

Karen K Briggs, Ioanna K Bolia

It started with the knee, then the shoulder, then the ankle, and now it is the hips’ turn. Instead of open surgery, arthroscopic surgery of the hip joint can be used to repair structural damage. Arthroscopic surgery is considered to be less invasive than an open procedure, and the intact tissues are minimally exposed and not traumatised. This approach can lead to quicker recovery and early return to function and activity, with fewer complications.1 For the hip, arthroscopy spares the cutting of the ligamentum teres and reduces damage to the capsular structures by avoiding dislocation. The literature has also supported the idea of hip arthroscopy as a less invasive method of repairing the damage caused by femoroacetabular impingement.2, 3 Femoroacetabular impingement, originally described by Ganz and colleagues,4 is abnormal bony morphology of the femoral head–neck junction, rim of the acetabulum, or both. This abnormal bone results in impingement and decreased space within the joint, causing damage to the intra-articular structures.

FULL TEXT

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31218-2/fulltext?dgcid=raven_jbs_etoc_email

PDF

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(18)31218-2.pdf

June 1, 2018 at 9:03 am

Biofilm and the Role of Antibiotics in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Joint Infections.

Open Orthop J. November 30, 2016 V.10 P.636-645.

Mirza YH1, Tansey R1, Sukeik M2, Shaath M3, Haddad FS1.

Author information

1 Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University of College London Hospital, 235 Euston Road, NW1 2BU, London, United Kingdom.

2 Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel, London, E1 1BB, United Kingdom.

3 Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, North Manchester General Hospital, Delaunay’s Road, Crumpsall, M8 5RB, United Kingdom.

Abstract

An increasing demand for lower limb arthroplasty will lead to a proportionate increase in the need for revision surgery. A notable proportion of revision surgery is secondary to periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). Diagnosing and eradicating PJI can form a very difficult challenge. An important cause of PJI is the formation of a bacterial biofilm on the implant surface. Our review article seeks to describe biofilms; their definitions and formation, common causative bacteria, prophylactic and therapeutic antibiotic therapy.

PDF

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5398090/pdf/TOORTHJ-10-636.pdf

May 31, 2018 at 12:58 pm

Predicting lower limb periprosthetic joint infections: A review of risk factors and their classification.

World J Orthop. May 18, 2017 V.8 N.5 P.400-411.

George DA1, Drago L1, Scarponi S1, Gallazzi E1, Haddad FS1, Romano CL1.

Author information

1 David A George, Fares S Haddad, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University College London Hospitals, London NW1 2BU, United Kingdom.

Abstract

AIM:

To undertook a systematic review to determine factors that increase a patient’s risk of developing lower limb periprosthetic joint infections (PJI).

METHODS:

This systematic review included full-text studies that reviewed risk factors of developing either a hip or knee PJI following a primary arthroplasty published from January 1998 to November 2016. A variety of keywords were used to identify studies through international databases referencing hip arthroplasty, knee arthroplasty, infection, and risk factors. Studies were only included if they included greater than 20 patients in their study cohort, and there was clear documentation of the statistical parameter used; specifically P-value, hazard ratio, relative risk, or/and odds ratio (OR). Furthermore a quality assessment criteria for the individual studies was undertaken to evaluate the presence of record and reporting bias.

RESULTS:

Twenty-seven original studies reviewing risk factors relating to primary total hip and knee arthroplasty infections were included. Four studies (14.8%) reviewed PJI of the hip, 3 (11.21%) of the knee, and 20 (74.1%) reviewed both joints. Nineteen studies (70.4%) were retrospective and 8 (29.6%) prospective. Record bias was identified in the majority of studies (66.7%). The definition of PJI varied amongst the studies but there was a general consensus to define infection by previously validated methods. The most significant risks were the use of preoperative high dose steroids (OR = 21.0, 95%CI: 3.5-127.2, P < 0.001), a BMI above 50 (OR = 18.3, P < 0.001), tobacco use (OR = 12.76, 95%CI: 2.47-66.16, P = 0.017), body mass index below 20 (OR = 6.00, 95%CI: 1.2-30.9, P = 0.033), diabetes (OR = 5.47, 95%CI: 1.77-16.97, P = 0.003), and coronary artery disease (OR = 5.10, 95%CI: 1.3-19.8, P = 0.017).

CONCLUSION:

We have highlighted the need for the provider to optimise modifiable risk factors, and develop strategies to limit the impact of non-modifiable factors.

PDF

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5434347/pdf/WJO-8-400.pdf

May 31, 2018 at 12:56 pm

Older Posts


Calendar

July 2018
M T W T F S S
« Jun    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Posts by Month

Posts by Category