The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2006;88:1231-1237.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00004
© 2006 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the activities for this article:
 Adult Hip Reconstruction Test 20: Summer 2006 (publication date August 15, ...
Shoulder/Elbow Test 15: Summer 2006 (publication date August 15, 2006; expi...
Right arrow [Supplementary Material]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fulkerson, E.
Right arrow Articles by Di Cesare, P. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fulkerson, E.
Right arrow Articles by Di Cesare, P. E.
Related Collections
Right arrow Adult Hip
Right arrow Adult Knee
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Antibiotic Susceptibility of Bacteria Infecting Total Joint Arthroplasty Sites

Eric Fulkerson, MD1, Craig J. Della Valle, MD2, Brent Wise, MD1, Michael Walsh, PhD1, Charles Preston, MD1 and Paul E. Di Cesare, MD1

1 Musculoskeletal Research Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, New York University Hospital for Joint Diseases, 301 East 17th Street, New York, NY 10003. E-mail address for P.E. Di Cesare: pedicesare{at}aol.com
2 Rush University Medical Center, Midwest Orthopaedics, 1725 West Harrison Street, Suite 1063, Chicago, IL 60612

Investigation performed at the Musculoskeletal Research Center, New York University Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, NY, and Rush University Medical Center, Midwest Orthopaedics, Chicago, Illinois

The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research for or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

Background: Currently, there is no consensus regarding the principles of empiric antibiotic treatment of suspected periprosthetic infection following total knee and hip arthroplasties. This study was undertaken to attempt to establish such principles.

Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 146 patients who had had a total of 194 positive cultures of specimens obtained at the time of a reoperation following a total knee or total hip arthroplasty at one of two institutions. Patient demographic data, comorbid conditions, bacterial species, the antibiotic sensitivity profile, and the postoperative day on which the culture tested positive were recorded.

Results: Specimens from 110 hips and eighty-four knees were positive on culture. Seventy percent of the infections were classified as chronic; 17%, as acute postoperative; and 13%, as acute hematogenous. The mean time between the operation and the positive culture results was three days. Gram-positive organisms caused the majority of the infections. In the series as a whole, 88% of the bacteria were sensitive to gentamicin; 96%, to vancomycin; and 61%, to cefazolin. The most antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains were from patients for whom prior antibiotic treatment had failed. Acute postoperative infections had a greater resistance profile than did chronic or hematogenous infections. Bacteria isolated from patients with a hematogenous infection had a high sensitivity to both cefazolin and gentamicin.

Conclusions: Empiric antibiotic treatment for suspected periprosthetic infection should be guided by the class of the infection and the findings of Gram staining. We believe that, until the final culture results are available, acute hematogenous infections should initially be treated by a combination of cefazolin and gentamicin therapy. All chronic and acute postoperative infections with Gram-positive bacteria and all cases in which a Gram stain fails to identify bacteria should be managed with vancomycin. Infections with Gram-negative bacteria should be managed with a third or fourth-generation cephalosporin. Infections with mixed Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria should be managed with a combination of vancomycin and a third or fourth-generation cephalosporin. Furthermore, we believe that if culture results and other confirmatory tests are not positive by the fourth postoperative day, termination of empiric antibiotic therapy should be considered.

Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level IV. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JBJSHome page
J. H. Lonner and C. A. Deirmengian
What's New in Adult Reconstructive Knee Surgery
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., December 1, 2007; 89(12): 2828 - 2837.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
M. H. Huo, N. F. Gilbert, and J. Parvizi
What's New in Total Hip Arthroplasty
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., August 1, 2007; 89(8): 1874 - 1885.
[Full Text] [PDF]