Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Joint Research, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Acta Orthop. 2020 Dec;91(6):794-800. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1794096. Epub 2020 Jul 23.
Background and purpose - The optimal type and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis for primary arthroplasty of the hip and knee are subject to debate. We compared the risk of complete revision (obtained by a 1- or 2-stage procedure) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary total hip or knee arthroplasty between patients receiving a single dose of prophylactic antibiotics and patients receiving multiple doses of antibiotics for prevention of PJI. Patients and methods - A cohort of 130,712 primary total hip and 111,467 knee arthroplasties performed between 2011 and 2015 in the Netherlands was analyzed. We linked data from the Dutch arthroplasty register to a survey collected across all Dutch institutions on hospital-level antibiotic prophylaxis policy. We used restricted cubic spline Poisson models adjusted for hospital clustering to compare the risk of revision for infection according to type and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis received. Results - For total hip arthroplasties, the rates of revision for infection were 31/10,000 person-years (95% CI 28-35), 39 (25-59), and 23 (15-34) in the groups that received multiple doses of cefazolin, multiple doses of cefuroxime, and a single dose of cefazolin, respectively. The rates for knee arthroplasties were 27/10,000 person-years (95% CI 24-31), 40 (24-62), and 24 (16-36). Similar risk of complete revision for infection among antibiotic prophylaxis regimens was found when adjusting for confounders. Interpretation - In a large observational cohort we found no apparent association between the type or duration of antibiotic prophylaxis and the risk of complete revision for infection. This does question whether there is any advantage to the use of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis beyond a single dose.
背景与目的-髋关节和膝关节初次关节置换术的最佳抗生素预防类型和持续时间仍存在争议。我们比较了接受单次预防性抗生素和多次预防性抗生素的患者发生假体周围关节感染(PJI)后,行初次全髋关节或膝关节置换术的患者,其 PJI 完全翻修(1 期或 2 期手术获得)的风险。患者和方法-分析了 2011 年至 2015 年期间在荷兰进行的 130712 例初次全髋关节和 111467 例膝关节置换术的队列。我们将荷兰关节置换登记处的数据与荷兰所有机构的一项关于医院级抗生素预防政策的调查数据相链接。我们使用受限立方样条泊松模型调整了医院聚类,根据接受的抗生素预防类型和持续时间来比较感染修正的风险。结果-对于全髋关节置换术,接受多次头孢唑啉、多次头孢呋辛和单次头孢唑啉治疗的患者中,感染性翻修的发生率分别为每 10000 人年 31 例(95%可信区间 28-35)、39 例(25-59)和 23 例(15-34)。膝关节置换术的发生率分别为每 10000 人年 27 例(95%可信区间 24-31)、40 例(24-62)和 24 例(16-36)。在调整混杂因素后,发现抗生素预防方案之间感染性完全翻修的风险无明显差异。结论-在一项大型观察性队列研究中,我们未发现抗生素预防类型或持续时间与感染性完全翻修风险之间存在明显关联。这确实质疑了单次剂量以上使用延长抗生素预防是否有任何优势。