The Journal of arthroplasty · 2022
Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis After Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Does It Decrease Infection Risk?
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bukowski Brandon R, Owen Aaron R, Turner Travis W, Fruth Kristin M, Osmon Douglas R, Pagnano Mark W, Berry Daniel J, Abdel Matthew P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOA) has been shown to reduce infection after high-risk primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and reimplantations. However, data are limited regarding EOA after aseptic revision THAs. This study evaluated the impact of EOA on infection-related outcomes after aseptic revision THAs.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified 1,107 aseptic revision THAs performed between 2014 and 2019. Patients who received EOA >24 hours perioperatively (n = 370) were compared to those who did not (n = 737) using an inverse probability of treatment weighting model. Their mean age was 65 years (range, 19-98 years), mean body mass index was 30 kg/m2 (range, 16-72), and 54% were women. Outcomes included cumulative probabilities of any infection, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and re-revision or reoperation for infection. Mean follow-up was 4 years (range, 2-8 years).
RESULTS: The cumulative probability of any infection after aseptic revision THA was 2.3% at 90 days, 2.7% at 1 year, and 3.5% at 5 years. The cumulative probability of PJI was 1.7% at 90 days, 2.1% at 1 year, and 2.8% at 5 years. There was a trend toward an increased risk of any infection (hazards ratio [HR] = 2.6; P = .058), PJI (HR = 2.6; P = .085), and re-revision (HR = 6.5; P = .077) or reoperation (HR = 2.3; P = .095) for infection in patients who did not have EOA at the final clinical follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: EOA after aseptic revision THA was not associated with a statistically significant decreased risk of any infection, PJI, or re-revision or reoperation for infection at all time points.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified 1,107 aseptic revision THAs performed between 2014 and 2019. Patients who received EOA >24 hours perioperatively (n = 370) were compared to those who did not (n = 737) using an inverse probability of treatment weighting model. Their mean age was 65 years (range, 19-98 years), mean body mass index was 30 kg/m2 (range, 16-72), and 54% were women. Outcomes included cumulative probabilities of any infection, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and re-revision or reoperation for infection. Mean follow-up was 4 years (range, 2-8 years).
RESULTS: The cumulative probability of any infection after aseptic revision THA was 2.3% at 90 days, 2.7% at 1 year, and 3.5% at 5 years. The cumulative probability of PJI was 1.7% at 90 days, 2.1% at 1 year, and 2.8% at 5 years. There was a trend toward an increased risk of any infection (hazards ratio [HR] = 2.6; P = .058), PJI (HR = 2.6; P = .085), and re-revision (HR = 6.5; P = .077) or reoperation (HR = 2.3; P = .095) for infection in patients who did not have EOA at the final clinical follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: EOA after aseptic revision THA was not associated with a statistically significant decreased risk of any infection, PJI, or re-revision or reoperation for infection at all time points.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.