组织活检前的抗生素预防对假定无菌翻修全髋关节置换术的培养结果没有影响

IF 1.8 Q3 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Journal of Bone and Joint Infection Pub Date : 2024-02-15 DOI:10.5194/jbji-9-67-2024
Jesse D. De Groot, R. Brokelman, B. Fransen, Tim U. Jiya, Dean F. M. Pakvis
{"title":"组织活检前的抗生素预防对假定无菌翻修全髋关节置换术的培养结果没有影响","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

摘要:背景背景:由于人工关节感染(PJI)的高发率,抗生素预防(AP)被认为是翻修全髋关节置换术(R-THA)的金标准。要诊断 PJI,术中组织活检培养尤为重要。然而,抗生素的干扰理论上会导致培养结果的可靠性降低。目前,关于在组织活检之前还是之后使用 AP 还没有达成共识。在本研究中,我们旨在调查 AP 时间对假定无菌 R-THA 培养结果和 PJI 发生率的影响。方法:对490名患者进行了一项回顾性单中心队列研究;61名患者在切口前接受了AP治疗,429名患者在活检后接受了AP治疗。每位患者至少在术中取样三次,培养至少两周。最少随访 6 个月。收集并分析了流行病学和临床数据(包括培养结果和随访期间的 PJI 发生率)。结果如下切口前和活检后使用 AP 的阳性培养结果(4.9% 对 5.4%,P=0.89)和污染培养结果(23.0% 对 22.6%,P=0.95)无显著差异。随访期间的术后 PJI 发生率分别为 1.6% 和 3.0%。这一差异无统计学意义(P=0.54)。结论:与活组织检查后使用 AP 相比,切口前使用 AP 并不会减少培养结果。尽管在统计学上没有显著意义,但如果在组织活检后才注射 AP,随访期间的 PJI 几乎是前者的两倍。其他文献也支持切口前 AP 的额外保护作用。因此,我们认为对于假定无菌的 R-THA,切口前给予 AP 更为可取。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Antibiotic prophylaxis before tissue biopsy has no effect on culture results in presumed aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Musculoskeletal manifestations of lower-extremity coccidioidomycosis: a case series Emergence of rifampicin-resistant staphylococci on the skin and nose of rifampicin-treated patients with an orthopaedic-device-related infection What is the agreement between principles and practice of antibiotic stewardship in the management of diabetic foot infection: an in-hospital quality control study. It is time for a unified definition of native vertebral osteomyelitis: a framework proposal. Ureaplasma urealyticum osteomyelitis of the greater trochanter in a patient with multiple sclerosis using ocrelizumab – a case report
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1