Posts filed under ‘Infecciones sitio quirurgico’

JULY 2018 – Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infection After Cholecystectomy

Background.

There are limited data on risk factors for surgical site infection (SSI) after open or laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods.

A retrospective cohort of commercially insured persons aged 18–64 years was assembled using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) procedure or Current Procedural Terminology, 4th edition codes for cholecystectomy from December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2010. Complex procedures and patients (eg, cancer, end-stage renal disease) and procedures with pre-existing infection were excluded. Surgical site infections within 90 days after cholecystectomy were identified by ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent risk factors for SSI.

Results.

Surgical site infections were identified after 472 of 66566 (0.71%) cholecystectomies; incidence was higher after open (n = 51, 4.93%) versus laparoscopic procedures (n = 421, 0.64%; P < .001). Independent risk factors for SSI included male gender, preoperative chronic anemia, diabetes, drug abuse, malnutrition/weight loss, obesity, smoking-related diseases, previous Staphylococcus aureus infection, laparoscopic approach with acute cholecystitis/obstruction (hazards ratio [HR], 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27–1.96), open approach with (HR, 4.29; 95% CI, 2.45–7.52) or without acute cholecystitis/obstruction (HR, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.96–8.34), conversion to open approach with (HR, 4.71; 95% CI, 2.74–8.10) or without acute cholecystitis/obstruction (HR, 7.11; 95% CI, 3.87–13.08), bile duct exploration, postoperative chronic anemia, and postoperative pneumonia or urinary tract infection.

Conclusions.

Acute cholecystitis or obstruction was associated with significantly increased risk of SSI with laparoscopic but not open cholecystectomy. The risk of SSI was similar for planned open and converted procedures. These findings suggest that stratification by operative factors is important when comparing SSI rates between facilities.

FULL TEXT

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/4/2/ofx036/3044173

PDF (CLIC en PDF)

Advertisements

July 15, 2018 at 4:00 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

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

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. September 2017 V.55 N.9 P.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

May 31, 2018 at 12:54 pm

Differential Contributions of Specimen Types, Culturing, and 16S rRNA Sequencing in Diagnosis of Prosthetic Joint Infections

Journal of Clinical Microbiology May 2018 V.56 N.5

Lone Heimann Larsen, Vesal Khalid, Yijuan Xu, Trine Rolighed Thomsen, and Henrik C. Schønheyder , the PRIS Study Group

a Department of Clinical Microbiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark

b Center for Microbial Communities, Department of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

c Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark

d Biotech, Danish Technological Institute, Aarhus, Denmark

e Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark

Department of Infectious Diseases, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark

Danish Technological Institute, Biotech, Aarhus, Denmark

Department of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University

Prosthetic joint failure is mainly caused by infection, aseptic failure (AF), and mechanical problems. Infection detection has been improved with modified culture methods and molecular diagnostics. However, comparisons between modified and conventional microbiology methods are difficult due to variations in specimen sampling. In this prospective, multidisciplinary study of hip or knee prosthetic failures, we assessed the contributions of different specimen types, extended culture incubations, and 16S rRNA sequencing for diagnosing prosthetic joint infections (PJI). Project specimens included joint fluid (JF), bone biopsy specimens (BB), soft-tissue biopsy specimens (STB), and swabs (SW) from the prosthesis, collected in situ, and sonication fluid collected from prosthetic components (PC). Specimens were cultured for 6 (conventional) or 14 days, and 16S rRNA sequencing was performed at study completion. Of the 156 patients enrolled, 111 underwent 114 surgical revisions (cases) due to indications of either PJI (n = 43) or AF (n = 71). Conventional tissue biopsy cultures confirmed PJI in 28/43 (65%) cases and refuted AF in 3/71 (4%) cases; one case was not evaluable. Based on these results, minor diagnostic adjustments were made. Fourteen-day cultures of JF, STB, and PC specimens confirmed PJI in 39/42 (93%) cases, and 16S rRNA sequencing confirmed PJI in 33/42 (83%) cases. One PJI case was confirmed with 16S rRNA sequencing alone and five with cultures of project specimens alone. These findings indicated that JF, STB, and PC specimen cultures qualified as an optimal diagnostic set. The contribution of sequencing to diagnosis of PJI may depend on patient selection; this hypothesis requires further investigation.

abstract

http://jcm.asm.org/content/56/5/e01351-17.abstract

PDF

http://jcm.asm.org/content/56/5/e01351-17.full.pdf+html

May 28, 2018 at 9:28 am

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