无菌全髋关节或膝关节翻修关节置换术后,装入大剂量庆大霉素和林可霉素的水泥并不能降低后续感染的风险:一项初步研究。

IF 3 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology Pub Date : 2024-07-24 DOI:10.1186/s10195-024-00775-1
Ceyran Hamoudi, Marie Hamon, Aurélie Reiter-Schatz, Pierre-Antoine Debordes, Jeannot Gaudias, Cécile Rondé-Oustau, Jean-Yves Jenny
{"title":"无菌全髋关节或膝关节翻修关节置换术后,装入大剂量庆大霉素和林可霉素的水泥并不能降低后续感染的风险:一项初步研究。","authors":"Ceyran Hamoudi, Marie Hamon, Aurélie Reiter-Schatz, Pierre-Antoine Debordes, Jeannot Gaudias, Cécile Rondé-Oustau, Jean-Yves Jenny","doi":"10.1186/s10195-024-00775-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to quantify the prophylactic effect of high-dose gentamicin and clindamycin antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) during revision total hip (rTHA) or knee (rTKA) arthroplasty for aseptic reasons. The hypothesis was that the raw surgical site infection (SSI) rate is lower when this particular cement is used in comparison with cement loaded with standard-dose gentamicin during rTHA or rTKA for aseptic reasons.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 290 consecutive patients undergoing aseptic rTHA or rTKA. Two consecutive cohorts were defined: the first (control group) involved 145 patients where ALBC with gentamicin only was used; the second (study group) involved 145 patients where ALBC with high-dose gentamicin and clindamycin was used. The primary endpoint was the raw SSI rate after 24 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The raw SSI rate was 8/145 (6%) in the control group and 13/145 (9%) in the study group (odds ratio 0.62, p = 0.26). There was a significant impact of the presence of any risk factor on the SSI rate (15/100 versus 6/169, odds ratio = 4.25, p = 0.002), but no significant impact of any individual risk factor. No complication or side effect related to ALBC was observed in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These results do not support the routine use of gentamicin and clindamycin ALBC for fixation of revision implants after rTHA and rTKA for aseptic reasons.</p>","PeriodicalId":48603,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11269536/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cement loaded with high-dose gentamicin and clindamycin does not reduce the risk of subsequent infection after aseptic total hip or knee revision arthroplasty: a preliminary study.\",\"authors\":\"Ceyran Hamoudi, Marie Hamon, Aurélie Reiter-Schatz, Pierre-Antoine Debordes, Jeannot Gaudias, Cécile Rondé-Oustau, Jean-Yves Jenny\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s10195-024-00775-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to quantify the prophylactic effect of high-dose gentamicin and clindamycin antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) during revision total hip (rTHA) or knee (rTKA) arthroplasty for aseptic reasons. The hypothesis was that the raw surgical site infection (SSI) rate is lower when this particular cement is used in comparison with cement loaded with standard-dose gentamicin during rTHA or rTKA for aseptic reasons.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 290 consecutive patients undergoing aseptic rTHA or rTKA. Two consecutive cohorts were defined: the first (control group) involved 145 patients where ALBC with gentamicin only was used; the second (study group) involved 145 patients where ALBC with high-dose gentamicin and clindamycin was used. The primary endpoint was the raw SSI rate after 24 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The raw SSI rate was 8/145 (6%) in the control group and 13/145 (9%) in the study group (odds ratio 0.62, p = 0.26). There was a significant impact of the presence of any risk factor on the SSI rate (15/100 versus 6/169, odds ratio = 4.25, p = 0.002), but no significant impact of any individual risk factor. No complication or side effect related to ALBC was observed in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These results do not support the routine use of gentamicin and clindamycin ALBC for fixation of revision implants after rTHA and rTKA for aseptic reasons.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48603,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11269536/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-024-00775-1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-024-00775-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在量化高剂量庆大霉素和克林霉素抗生素骨水泥(ALBC)在无菌原因的翻修全髋(rTHA)或膝(rTKA)关节成形术中的预防效果。假设在无菌原因的翻修全髋关节置换术(rTHA)或膝关节置换术(rTKA)中使用这种特殊骨水泥与使用标准剂量庆大霉素的骨水泥相比,手术部位感染(SSI)的发生率更低:这项回顾性研究包括290名连续接受无菌rTHA或rTKA的患者。确定了两个连续队列:第一个队列(对照组)包括145名仅使用庆大霉素的ALBC患者;第二个队列(研究组)包括145名使用大剂量庆大霉素和克林霉素的ALBC患者。主要终点是 24 个月后的原始 SSI 感染率:对照组的原始 SSI 感染率为 8/145(6%),研究组为 13/145(9%)(几率比 0.62,P = 0.26)。任何风险因素的存在都会对 SSI 感染率产生重大影响(15/100 对 6/169,几率比 = 4.25,p = 0.002),但任何单个风险因素都不会产生重大影响。两组患者均未观察到与ALBC相关的并发症或副作用:这些结果不支持常规使用庆大霉素和克林霉素ALBC固定rTHA和rTKA术后因无菌原因而翻修的植入物。
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
Cement loaded with high-dose gentamicin and clindamycin does not reduce the risk of subsequent infection after aseptic total hip or knee revision arthroplasty: a preliminary study.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to quantify the prophylactic effect of high-dose gentamicin and clindamycin antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) during revision total hip (rTHA) or knee (rTKA) arthroplasty for aseptic reasons. The hypothesis was that the raw surgical site infection (SSI) rate is lower when this particular cement is used in comparison with cement loaded with standard-dose gentamicin during rTHA or rTKA for aseptic reasons.

Methods: This retrospective study included 290 consecutive patients undergoing aseptic rTHA or rTKA. Two consecutive cohorts were defined: the first (control group) involved 145 patients where ALBC with gentamicin only was used; the second (study group) involved 145 patients where ALBC with high-dose gentamicin and clindamycin was used. The primary endpoint was the raw SSI rate after 24 months.

Results: The raw SSI rate was 8/145 (6%) in the control group and 13/145 (9%) in the study group (odds ratio 0.62, p = 0.26). There was a significant impact of the presence of any risk factor on the SSI rate (15/100 versus 6/169, odds ratio = 4.25, p = 0.002), but no significant impact of any individual risk factor. No complication or side effect related to ALBC was observed in either group.

Conclusion: These results do not support the routine use of gentamicin and clindamycin ALBC for fixation of revision implants after rTHA and rTKA for aseptic reasons.

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
Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
56
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, the official open access peer-reviewed journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, publishes original papers reporting basic or clinical research in the field of orthopaedic and traumatologic surgery, as well as systematic reviews, brief communications, case reports and letters to the Editor. Narrative instructional reviews and commentaries to original articles may be commissioned by Editors from eminent colleagues. The Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology aims to be an international forum for the communication and exchange of ideas concerning the various aspects of orthopaedics and musculoskeletal trauma.
期刊最新文献
Is there a difference in pelvic and femoral morphology in early periprosthetic femoral fracture in cementless short stem total hip arthroplasty via an anterolateral approach? Differences in the effectiveness of leukocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma compared with leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of rotator cuff surgery: an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Can a single question replace patient-reported outcomes in the follow-up of elbow arthroplasty? A validation study. Are the costs of 3D printing for surgical procedures yet to be definitively assessed? The extensive use of 3D printing in trauma does not yet fit the value-based healthcare era.
×
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