Posts filed under ‘Infecciones sitio quirurgico’

Chlorhexidine–Alcohol versus Povidone–Iodine for Surgical-Site Antisepsis

N Engl J Med January 7, 2010 V.362 N.1 P.18-26

Rabih O. Darouiche, M.D., Matthew J. Wall, Jr., M.D., Kamal M.F. Itani, M.D., Mary F. Otterson, M.D., Alexandra L. Webb, M.D., Matthew M. Carrick, M.D., Harold J. Miller, M.D., Samir S. Awad, M.D., Cynthia T. Crosby, B.S., Michael C. Mosier, Ph.D., Atef AlSharif, M.D., and David H. Berger, M.D.

BACKGROUND

Since the patient’s skin is a major source of pathogens that cause surgical-site infection, optimization of preoperative skin antisepsis may decrease postoperative infections. We hypothesized that preoperative skin cleansing with chlorhexidine–alcohol is more protective against infection than is povidone–iodine.

METHODS

We randomly assigned adults undergoing clean-contaminated surgery in six hospitals to preoperative skin preparation with either chlorhexidine–alcohol scrub or povidone–iodine scrub and paint. The primary outcome was any surgical-site infection within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included individual types of surgical-site infections.

RESULTS

A total of 849 subjects (409 in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group and 440 in the povidone–iodine group) qualified for the intention-to-treat analysis. The overall rate of surgical-site infection was significantly lower in the chlorhexidine–alcohol group than in the povidone–iodine group (9.5% vs. 16.1%; P=0.004; relative risk, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.85). Chlorhexidine–alcohol was significantly more protective than povidone–iodine against both superficial incisional infections (4.2% vs. 8.6%, P=0.008) and deep incisional infections (1% vs. 3%, P=0.05) but not against organ-space infections (4.4% vs. 4.5%). Similar results were observed in the per-protocol analysis of the 813 patients who remained in the study during the 30-day follow-up period. Adverse events were similar in the two study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative cleansing of the patient’s skin with chlorhexidine–alcohol is superior to cleansing with povidone–iodine for preventing surgical-site infection after clean-contaminated surgery. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00290290.)

FULL TEXT

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0810988

PDF

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa0810988

Advertisements

October 3, 2018 at 3:02 pm

The Leukocyte Esterase Test Strip Is a Poor Rule-Out Test for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

Journal of Arthroplasty August 2018 V.33 N.8 P.2571–2574

Carl A. Deirmengian, Lihua Liang, John P. Rosenberger, Tony R. Joaquim, Martin R. Gould, Patrick A. Citrano, Keith W. Kardos

Background

The urinary leukocyte esterase (LE) test strip has been suggested as a good screening test for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic profile of LE assays from different manufacturers and determine whether the LE test strip is a good rule-out test.

Methods

Synovial fluid samples (N = 344), sent to 1 laboratory for PJI testing, were used in this prospective study. Four different tests for synovial fluid LE were simultaneously evaluated for their performance in detecting white blood cell (WBC) positive samples (>3000 cells/µL).

Results

Both neutrophil elastase immunoassays demonstrated greater sensitivity than urinary LE test strips (92.0% and 90.8% vs 72.4% and 80.3%; all P < 0.011). Fifty-three percent of false-negative urinary LE test strip results clearly missed the presence of elevated levels of synovial fluid LE. Invalid urinary LE test strip results were 4-fold more likely among WBC (+) compared with WBC (−) samples (27.0% vs 6.8%; P < 0.0001). The combined failure to detect an elevated WBC count, because of either false-negative or invalid results, was 47.1% and 41.4% for the Roche and Siemens test strips, respectively.

Conclusions

This study agrees with the existing literature demonstrating that the LE test strips are among the lowest sensitivity tests for PJI. The urinary LE tests strips should not be used to rule-out PJI, as they often fail to detect abundant levels of LE in synovial fluid. Instead, it is more appropriate to use the (++) LE test strip result as a secondary confirmatory rule-in test for PJI because of its high specificity.

FULL TEXT

https://www.arthroplastyjournal.org/article/S0883-5403(18)30243-2/fulltext

PDF

https://www.arthroplastyjournal.org/article/S0883-5403(18)30243-2/pdf

September 29, 2018 at 10:36 am

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

 

September 2, 2018 at 7:00 pm

How Reliable Is the Alpha-defensin Immunoassay Test for Diagnosing Periprosthetic Joint Infection? A Prospective Study.

Clin Orthop Relat Res. February 2017 V.475 N.2 P.408-415.

Bonanzinga T1, Zahar A2, Dütsch M1, Lausmann C1, Kendoff D3, Gehrke T1.

Author information

1 HELIOS ENDO Klinik, Holstenstrasse 2, 22767, Hamburg, Germany.

2 HELIOS ENDO Klinik, Holstenstrasse 2, 22767, Hamburg, Germany. akos.zahar@helios-kliniken.de.

3 HELIOS Klinik Berlin-Buch, Berlin, Germany.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

A key issue in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the correct diagnosis. The main problem is lack of diagnostic tools able to diagnose a PJI with high accuracy. Alpha-defensin has been proposed as a possible solution, but in the current literature, there is a lack of independent validation.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:

We performed a prospective study to determine (1) what is the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and the negative predictive values of the alpha-defensin immunoassay test in diagnosing PJI; and (2) which clinical features may be responsible for false-positive and false-negative results?

METHODS:

Preoperative aspiration was performed in all patients presenting with a painful hip/knee arthroplasty, including both primary and revision implants. Metallosis, other inflammatory comorbidities, and previous/concomitant antibiotic therapy were not considered as exclusion criteria. An inadequate amount of synovial fluid for culture was an exclusion criterion. A total of 156 patients (65 knees, 91 hips) were included in this prospective study. At the time of revision, synovial fluid samples were taken to perform the alpha-defensin assay. During surgical débridement of tissue, samples for cultures and histologic evaluation were taken, and samples were cultured until positive or until negative at 14 days. A diagnosis of PJI was confirmed in 29 patients according to the International Consensus Group on PJI.

RESULTS:

The sensitivity of the alpha-defensin immunoassay was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92%-99%), the specificity was 97% (95% CI, 92%-99%), the positive predictive value was 88% (95% CI, 81%-92%), and the negative predictive value was 99% (95% CI, 96%-99%). Among four false-positive patients, two had metallosis and one had polyethylene wear. The false-negative case presented with a draining sinus, and intraoperative cultures were also negative.

CONCLUSIONS:

Alpha-defensin assay appears to be a reliable test, but followup evaluation is needed to estimate longer term performance of the test. The authors believe that alpha-defensin has demonstrated itself to be sufficiently robust that PJI diagnostic criteria now should include this test. Future studies are needed to compare the differences among the diagnostic capability of the available tests, in particular when metallosis is present, because metallosis may predispose the test to a false-positive result.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:

Level I, diagnostic study.

PDF

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5213924/pdf/11999_2016_Article_4906.pdf

September 2, 2018 at 6:58 pm

Current Recommendations for the Diagnosis of Acute and Chronic PJI for Hip and Knee-Cell Counts, Alpha-Defensin, Leukocyte Esterase, Next-generation Sequencing.

Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. September 2018 V.11 N.3 P.428-438.

Goswami K1, Parvizi J1, Maxwell Courtney P2.

Author information

1 The Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, 125 S 9th St. Ste 1000, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.

2 The Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, 125 S 9th St. Ste 1000, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. Max.Courtney@rothmaninstitute.com .

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW:

Despite significant progress in recent years, the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a challenge and no gold standard test exists. A combination of serological, synovial, microbiological, histological, and radiological investigations is performed that are expensive, often invasive, and imperfect. Novel biomarkers and molecular methods have shown promise in recent years. The purpose of this review is to provide an update about the diagnostic recommendations for PJI and cover a selection of emerging diagnostic tools.

RECENT FINDINGS:

Recent literature highlights a new evidence-based definition for diagnosing hip and knee PJI that shows excellent performance on formal external multi-institutional validation. There is also increasing evidence to support the measurement of selected biomarkers in serum and synovial fluid, such as alpha-defensin, D-dimer, and interleukin-6. Finally, the emerging utility of next-generation sequencing for pathogen identification is discussed. In summary, we describe current recommendations and emerging tests for the diagnosis of PJI. Residual limitations and directions for future research are also discussed.

PDF

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6105482/pdf/12178_2018_Article_9513.pdf

 

 

 

September 1, 2018 at 7:18 pm

Moxifloxacin plus rifampin as an alternative for levofloxacin plus rifampin in the treatment of a prosthetic joint infection with Staphylococcus aureus.

Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2018 Jan;51(1):38-42.                     

Wouthuyzen-Bakker M1, Tornero E2, Morata L3, Nannan Panday PV4, Jutte PC5, Bori G6, Kampinga GA7, Soriano A3.

Author information

1 Department of Internal Medicine / Infectious Diseases, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address:m.wouthuyzen-bakker@umcg.nl.

2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain.

3 Service of Infectious Diseases, Hospital Clínic, University of Barcelona, Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.

4 Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

5 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

6 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.

7 Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

The combination of a fluoroquinolone with rifampin is one of the cornerstones in the treatment of prosthetic joint infections (PJI) caused by staphylococci. Moxifloxacin is highly active against methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) and, therefore, is an attractive agent to use. However, several studies reported a lowering in serum moxifloxacin levels when combined with rifampin. The clinical relevance remains unclear. We determined the outcome of patients with early acute PJI caused by MSSA treated with either moxifloxacin/rifampin or levofloxacin/rifampin.

METHODS:

Medical files of patients treated with moxifloxacin/rifampin (University Medical Centre Groningen) or levofloxacin/rifampin (Hospital Clinic Barcelona) were retrospectively reviewed (2005-2015). Treatment failure was defined as the need for revision surgery and/or suppressive therapy, death by infection or a relapse of infection during follow-up.

RESULTS:

Differences in baseline characteristics between the two cohorts were observed, but prognostic parameters for failure, as defined by the KLIC-score (Kidney failure, Liver cirrhosis, Index surgery, C-reactive protein and Cemented prosthesis), were similar in the two groups (2.9 [1.5 SD] for the moxifloxacin group vs. 2.2 [1.2 SD] for the levofloxacin group [P = 0.16]). With a mean follow-up of 50 months (36 SD) in the moxifloxacin group, and 67 months (50 SD) in the levofloxacin group (P = 0.36), treatment was successful in 89% vs. 87.5%, respectively (P = 0.89). None of the failures in the moxifloxacin group were due to rifampin- or moxifloxacin-resistant S. aureus strains.

CONCLUSION:

Our data indicate that moxifloxacin combined with rifampin is as clinically effective as levofloxacin/rifampin for early acute PJI caused by MSSA.

PDF

https://www.ijaaonline.com/article/S0924-8579(17)30210-8/pdf

July 31, 2018 at 6:52 pm

The Effect of Preoperative Antimicrobial Prophylaxis on Intraoperative Culture Results in Patients with a Suspected or Confirmed Prosthetic Joint Infection: a Systematic Review.

J Clin Microbiol. 2017 Sep;55(9):2765-2774.                    

Wouthuyzen-Bakker M1, Benito N2, Soriano A3.

Author information

1 Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands m.wouthuyzen-bakker@umcg.nl.

2 Infectious Diseases Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Institut d’Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

3 Service of Infectious Diseases, Hospital Clínic, University of Barcelona, Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.

Abstract

Obtaining reliable cultures during revision arthroplasty is important to adequately diagnose and treat a prosthetic joint infection (PJI). The influence of antimicrobial prophylaxis on culture results remains unclear. Since withholding prophylaxis increases the risk for surgical site infections, clarification on this topic is critical. A systematic review was performed with the following research question: in patients who undergo revision surgery of a prosthetic joint, does preoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis affect the culture yield of intraoperative samples in comparison with nonpreoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis? Seven articles were included in the final analysis. In most studies, standard diagnostic culture techniques were used. In patients with a PJI, pooled analysis showed a culture yield of 88% (145/165) in the prophylaxis group versus 95% (344/362) in the nonprophylaxis group (P = 0.004). Subanalysis of patients with chronic PJIs showed positive cultures in 88% (78/89) versus 91% (52/57), respectively (P = 0.59). In patients with a suspected chronic infection, a maximum difference of 4% in culture yield between the prophylaxis and nonprophylaxis groups was observed. With the use of standard culture techniques, antimicrobial prophylaxis seems to affect cultures in a minority of patients. Along with the known risk of surgical site infections due to inadequate timing of antimicrobial prophylaxis, we discourage the postponement of prophylaxis until tissue samples are obtained in revision surgery. Future studies are necessary to conclude whether the small percentage of false-negative cultures after prophylaxis can be further reduced with the use of more-sensitive culture techniques, like sonication.

PDF

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5648712/pdf/zjm2765.pdf

 

July 31, 2018 at 6:50 pm

Older Posts


Calendar

November 2018
M T W T F S S
« Oct    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Posts by Month

Posts by Category