Prophylactic Antibiotic Choice and Deep Infection in Lower Extremity Endoprosthetic Reconstruction: Comparison of Cefazolin, Cefazolin-Vancomycin, and Alternative Regimens.

INTRODUCTION

Infection is a common mode of failure in lower extremity endoprostheses. The Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumor Surgery trial reported that 5 days of cefazolin had no difference in surgical site infection compared with 24 hours of cefazolin. Our purpose was to evaluate infection rates of patients receiving perioperative cefazolin monotherapy, cefazolin-vancomycin dual therapy, or alternative antibiotic regimens.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective review was conducted on patients who received lower extremity endoprostheses from 2008 to 2021 with minimum 1-year follow-up. Three prophylactic antibiotic regimen groups were compared: cefazolin monotherapy, cefazolin-vancomycin dual therapy, and alternative regimens. The primary outcome was deep infection, defined by a sinus tract, positive culture, or clinical diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were revision surgery, microorganisms isolated, and superficial wound issues.

RESULTS

The overall deep infection rate was 10% (30/294) at the median final follow-up of 3.0 years (IQR 1.7 to 5.4). The deep infection rates in the cefazolin, cefazolin-vancomycin, and alternative regimen groups were 8% (6/72), 10% (18/179), and 14% (6/43), respectively ( P = 0.625). Patients not receiving cefazolin had an 18% deep infection rate (6/34) and 21% revision surgery rate (7/34) compared with a 9% deep infection rate (24/260) ( P = 0.13) and 12% revision surgery rate (31/260) ( P = 0.17) in patients receiving cefazolin. In those not receiving cefazolin, 88% (30/34) were due to a documented penicillin allergy, only two being anaphylaxis. All six patients in the alternative regimen group who developed deep infections did not receive cefazolin secondary to nonanaphylactic penicillin allergy.

CONCLUSION

The addition of perioperative vancomycin to cefazolin in lower extremity endoprosthetic reconstructions was not associated with a lower deep infection rate. Patients who did not receive cefazolin trended toward higher rates of deep infection and revision surgery, although not statistically significant. The most common reason for not receiving cefazolin was a nonanaphylactic penicillin allergy, highlighting the continued practice of foregoing cefazolin unnecessarily.