Skin preparation before hip replacement in emergency setting versus elective scheduled arthroplasty: bacteriological comparative analysis

Comparison of mortality rate and septic and aseptic revisions in total hip arthroplasties for osteoarthritis and femoral neck fracture: an analysis of the German Arthroplasty Registry

BACKGROUND

Indications for total hip arthroplasties (THA) differ from primary osteoarthritis (OA), which allows elective surgery through femoral neck fractures (FNF), which require timely surgical care. The aim of this investigation was to compare mortality and revisions in THA for primary OA and FNF.

METHODS

Data collection for this study was performed using the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) with analysis THA for the treatment of FNF and OA. Cases were matched 1:1 according to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), cementation, and the Elixhauser score using Mahalanobis distance matching.

RESULTS

Overall 43,436 cases of THA for the treatment of OA and FNF were analyzed in this study. Mortality was significantly increased in FNF, with 12.6% after 1 year and 36.5% after 5 years compared with 3.0% and 18.7% in OA, respectively (p < 0.0001). The proportion for septic and aseptic revisions was significantly increased in FNF (p < 0.0001). Main causes for an aseptic failure were mechanical complications (OA: 1.1%; FNF: 2.4%; p < 0.0001) and periprosthetic fractures (OA: 0.2%; FNF: 0.4%; p = 0.021). As influencing factors for male patients with septic failure (p < 0.002), increased BMI and Elixhauser comorbidity score and diagnosis of fracture (all p < 0.0001) were identified. For aseptic revision surgeries, BMI, Elixhauser score, and FNF were influencing factors (p < 0.0001), while all cemented and hybrid cemented THA were associated with a risk reduction for aseptic failure within 90 days after surgery (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

In femoral neck fractures treated with THA, a significant higher mortality, as well as septic and aseptic failure rate, was demonstrated compared with prosthesis for the therapy of osteoarthritis. Increased Elixhauser comorbidity score and BMI are the main influencing factors for development of septic or aseptic failure and can represent a potential approach for prevention measures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Prognostic.

Surgical solutions for preoperative skin preparation in total hip arthroplasty: A cost-effectiveness analysis of Betadine® and Chloraprep™

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to compare the cost of surgical site skin preparation using ChloraPrep™ (2% chlorhexidine gluconate [CHG] and 70% isopropyl alcohol [IPA]) with skin cleansing using Betadine® Surgical Scrub and Betadine® 5% solution (povidone-iodine [PVI]) in total hip arthroplasty (THA).

HYPOTHESIS

The hypothesis was that the ChloraPrep™ skin disinfection protocol reduces the cost of perioperative antisepsis.

METHODS

A prospective database was created for all THAs performed at our university hospital between November 1st, 2020, and December 31st, 2020. Each surgeon was randomly assigned one type of antiseptic prior to the start of the study: one surgeon to the ChloraPrep™ group and one to the Betadine® group. In both groups, the enrollment stopped at the 15th patient. The costs related to consumables, waste disposal, and operating room occupancy time of each protocol were then assessed for each patient.

RESULTS

The mean duration of the ChloraPrep™ protocol was 3.5±0.3minutes compared to 13.5±0.9minutes for the Betadine® protocol. The overall cost of a surgical site skin preparation involving all three steps was on average €46.8±4.2 for the ChloraPrep™ group compared to €155±10.9 for the Betadine® group (p<0.0001).

DISCUSSION

Not only is the effectiveness of ChloraPrep™ already recognized but it also appears to have health economic benefits. However, further studies are needed to confirm this finding.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, case control study.

Surgical-site infection after hip fracture surgery: preoperative full-body disinfection compared to local disinfection of the surgical site-a population-based observational cohort study

Aim

To compare preoperative full-body disinfection (FBD) prior to hip fracture surgery with local disinfection (LD) of the surgical site regarding incidence of postoperative surgical-site infection (SSI), both procedures performed with 4% chlorhexidine.

Findings

There were 16 (6.8%) cases of SSI in 2018 when FBD was performed and 8 (3.1%) cases in 2019 when LD was performed. FBD (2018) compared to LD (2019) presented an adjusted OR of 2.0 (95% CI 0.8–5.1) in the logistic regression analysis.

Message

Results suggest that LD is not inferior to FBD regarding SSI prevention, meaning patients could potentially be spared significant levels of pain caused by FBD.

Purpose

Swedish national guidelines recommend full-body disinfection (FBD) with 4% chlorhexidine before hip fracture surgery to prevent surgical-site infection (SSI) despite little evidence. Our objective was to compare preoperative FBD with local disinfection (LD) of the surgical site regarding SSI incidence.

Methods

All patients with hip fracture, operated at a hospital in Sweden, January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019 were included. Patients in 2018 (n = 237) were prepared with FBD and patients in 2019 (n = 259) with LD. Primary outcome was SSI and secondary outcome was SSI and/or death. We adjusted for potential confounders with logistic regression. The adjusted analysis was performed in two models to enable assessment of variables that lacked either outcome; in the first model, these variables were not adjusted, and the second model was restricted to a sub-population not affected by respective variables.

Results

There were 16 (6.8%) cases of SSI in 2018 and 8 (3.1%) cases in 2019. FBD (2018) compared to LD (2019) presented an adjusted OR of 1.9 (95%CI 0.8–4.9, P = 0.16) respectively 2.0 (95%CI 0.8–5.1, P = 0.14) in the two models of the logistic regression. In addition, 40 (16.9%) patients in 2018 and 29 (11.2%) patients in 2019 had the combined outcome of SSI and/or death, adjusted OR 1.6 (95% CI 0.9–2.8, P = 0.08) respectively 1.7 (95% CI 0.9–2.9, P = 0.06).

Conclusion

We found a non-significant increased risk of SSI 2018 compared to 2019 after adjustment. Randomized control trials are needed. Nonetheless, results suggest that LD is not inferior to FBD regarding SSI prevention, meaning patients could potentially be spared substantial pain.

Operative treatment of early infection after internal fixation of limb fractures (exclusive of severe open fractures)

Early infection after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of a limb bone is defined as bacteriologically documented, deep and/or superficial surgical-site infection (SSI) diagnosed within 6months after the surgical procedure. This interval is arbitrarily considered sufficient to obtain fracture healing. The treatment of early infection after ORIF should be decided by a multidisciplinary team. The principles are the same as for revision arthroplasty. Superficial SSIs should be differentiated from deep SSIs, based on the results of bacteriological specimens collected using flawless technique. A turning point in the local microbial ecology occurs around the third or fourth week, when a biofilm develops around metallic implants. This biofilm protects the bacteria. The treatment relies on both non-operative and operative measures, which are selected based on the time to occurrence of the infection, condition of the soft tissues, and stage of bone healing. Both the surgical strategy and the antibiotic regimen should be determined during a multidisciplinary discussion. When treating superficial SSIs after ORIF, soft-tissue management is the main challenge. The treatment differs according to whether the hardware is covered or exposed. Defects in the skin and/or fascia can be managed using reliable reconstructive surgery techniques, either immediately or after a brief period of vacuum-assisted closure. In deep SSIs, deciding whether to leave or to remove the hardware is difficult. If the hardware is removed, the fracture site can be stabilised provisionally using either external fixation or a cement rod. Once infection control is achieved, several measures can be taken to stimulate bone healing before the end of the classical 6-month interval. If the hardware was removed, then internal fixation must be performed once the infection is eradicated.

Preventing surgical-site infections: measures other than antibiotics

Surgical-site infections (SSIs) due to intra-operative contamination are chiefly ascribable to airborne particles carrying microorganisms, mainly Staphylococcus aureus, which settle on the surgeon's hands and instruments. SSI prevention therefore rests on minimisation of airborne contaminated particle counts, although these have not been demonstrated to correlate significantly with SSI rates. Maintaining clear air in the operating room classically involves the use of ultra clean ventilation systems combining laminar airflow and high-efficiency particulate air filters to create a physical barrier around the surgical table; in addition to a stringent patient preparation protocol, appropriate equipment, and strict operating room discipline on the part of the surgeon and other staff members. SSI rates in clean surgery, although influenced by the type of procedure and by patient-related factors, are consistently very low, of about 1% to 2%. These low rates, together with the effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotic therapy and the multiplicity of parameters influencing the SSI risk, are major obstacles to the demonstration that a specific measure is effective in decreasing SSIs. As a result, controversy surrounds the usefulness of many measures, including laminar airflow, body exhaust suits, patient preparation techniques, and specific surgical instruments. Impeccable surgical technique and operating room behaviour, in contrast, are clearly essential.