The Journal of arthroplasty · 2018
High Efficiency Particulate Air Filters Do Not Affect Acute Infection Rates During Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty Using Forced Air Warmers.
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.
Curtis Gannon L, Faour Mhamad, George Jaiben, Klika Alison K, Barsoum Wael K, Higuera Carlos A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested that forced-air warmers (FAWs) increase contamination of the surgical site. In response, FAWs with high efficiency particulate air filters (FAW-HEPA) were introduced. This study compared infection rates following primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) using FAW and FAW-HEPA.
METHODS: Primary TJA patients at a single healthcare system were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 5405 THA (n = 2419) and TKA (n = 2986) consecutive cases in 2013 and 2015 were identified. Patients in 2013 (n = 2792) had procedures using FAW, while FAW-HEPA was used in 2015 (n = 2613). The primary outcome was overall infection rate within 90-days. Sub-categorization of infections as periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) or surgical site infection (SSI) was also conducted. PJI was defined as reoperation with arthrotomy or meeting Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. SSI was defined as wound complications requiring antibiotics or irrigation/debridement.
RESULTS: The FAW and FAW-HEPA groups had similar rates of overall infection (1.65% [n = 46] vs 1.61% [n = 42], P > .99), SSI (1.18% [n = 33] vs 0.84% [n = 22], P = .27), and PJI (0.47% [n = 13] vs 0.77% [n = 20], P = .22). Regression models did not show FAW to be an independent risk factor for increased overall infection (odds ratio [OR] 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.57, P = .97), SSI (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.83-2.58, P = .18), or PJI (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25-1.13, P = .09).
CONCLUSION: FAW were not correlated with a higher risk of overall infection, SSI, or PJI during TJA when compared to FAW-HEPA devices.
METHODS: Primary TJA patients at a single healthcare system were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 5405 THA (n = 2419) and TKA (n = 2986) consecutive cases in 2013 and 2015 were identified. Patients in 2013 (n = 2792) had procedures using FAW, while FAW-HEPA was used in 2015 (n = 2613). The primary outcome was overall infection rate within 90-days. Sub-categorization of infections as periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) or surgical site infection (SSI) was also conducted. PJI was defined as reoperation with arthrotomy or meeting Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. SSI was defined as wound complications requiring antibiotics or irrigation/debridement.
RESULTS: The FAW and FAW-HEPA groups had similar rates of overall infection (1.65% [n = 46] vs 1.61% [n = 42], P > .99), SSI (1.18% [n = 33] vs 0.84% [n = 22], P = .27), and PJI (0.47% [n = 13] vs 0.77% [n = 20], P = .22). Regression models did not show FAW to be an independent risk factor for increased overall infection (odds ratio [OR] 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.57, P = .97), SSI (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.83-2.58, P = .18), or PJI (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25-1.13, P = .09).
CONCLUSION: FAW were not correlated with a higher risk of overall infection, SSI, or PJI during TJA when compared to FAW-HEPA devices.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedAir FiltersAnti-Bacterial AgentsArthritis, InfectiousArthroplasty, Replacement, HipArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeDebridementElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHeatingHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisOdds RatioOperating RoomsReoperationRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSurgical Wound InfectionTreatment Outcome