High Infection Rate Outcomes in Long-bone Tumor Surgery with Endoprosthetic Reconstruction in Adults: A Systematic Review
- 740 Downloads
Limb salvage surgery (LSS) with endoprosthetic replacement is the most common method of reconstruction following bone tumor resection in the adult population. The risk of a postoperative infection developing is high when compared with conventional arthroplasty and there are no appropriate guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis.
We sought to answer the following questions: (1) What is the overall risk of deep infection and the causative organism in lower-extremity long-bone tumor surgery with endoprosthetic reconstruction? (2) What antibiotic regimens are used with endoprosthetic reconstruction? (3) Is there a correlation between infection and either duration of postoperative antibiotics or sample size?
We conducted a systematic review of the literature for clinical studies that reported infection rates in adults with primary bony malignancies of the lower extremity treated with surgery and endoprosthetic reconstruction. The search included articles published in English between 1980 and July 2011.
The systematic literature review yielded 48 studies reporting on a total of 4838 patients. The overall pooled weighted infection rate for lower-extremity LSS with endoprosthetic reconstruction was approximately 10% (95% CI, 8%–11%), with the most common causative organism reported to be Gram-positive bacteria in the majority of cases. The pooled weighted infection rate was 13% after short-term postoperative antibiotics and 8% after long-term postoperative antibiotics. There was no correlation between sample size and infection rate.
Infection rates of 10% are high when compared with rates for conventional arthroplasty. Our results suggest that long-term antibiotic prophylaxis decreases the risk of deep infection. However, the data should be interpreted with caution owing to the retrospective nature of the studies.
KeywordsAntibiotic Prophylaxis Deep Infection Limb Salvage Surgery Endoprosthetic Replacement Endoprosthetic Reconstruction
We thank Mike Fraumeni for technical assistance with the systematic database search.
- 1.Abudu A, Carter SR, Grimer RJ. The outcome and functional results of diaphyseal endoprostheses after tumour excision. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:652–657.Google Scholar
- 4.American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Bacteremia in Patients with Joint Replacements. Information Statement 1033. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2010.Google Scholar
- 7.Bratzler DW, Houck PM; Surgical Infection Prevention Guidelines Writers Workgroup; American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; American Association of Critical Care Nurses; American Association of Nurse Anesthetists; American College of Surgeons; American College of Osteopathic Surgeons; American Geriatrics Society; American Society of Anesthesiologists; American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons; American Society of Health-System Pharmacists; American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses; Ascension Health; Association of periOperative Registered Nurses; Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology; Infectious Diseases Society of America; Medical Letter; Premier; Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America; Society of Thoracic Surgeons; Surgical Infection Society. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:1706–1715.Google Scholar
- 11.Eckardt JJ, Eilber FR, Rosen G, Mirra JM, Dorey FJ, Ward WG, Kabo JM. Endoprosthetic replacement for stage IIB osteosarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;270:202–213.Google Scholar
- 14.Franco JA, Baer H, Enneking WF. Airborne contamination in orthopedic surgery: evaluation of laminar air flow system and aspiration suit. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1977;122:231–243.Google Scholar
- 15.Ghert M, Deheshi B, Holt G, Randall RL, Ferguson P, Wunder J, Turcotte R, Werier J, Clarkson P, Damron T, Benevenia J, Anderson M, Gebhardt M, Isler M, Mottard S, Healey J, Evaniew N, Racano A, Sprague S, Swinton M, Bryant D, Thabane L, Guyatt G, Bhandari M. PARITY Investigators Prophylactic antibiotic regimens in tumour surgery (PARITY) protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled study. BMJ Open. 2012;2:002197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Gupta A, Biyani M, Khaira A. Vancomycin nephrotoxicity: myths and facts. Neth J Med. 2011;69:379–383.Google Scholar
- 24.Hardes J, von Eiff C, Streitbuerger A, Balke M, Budny T, Henrichs MP, Hauschild G, Ahrens H. Reduction of periprosthetic infection with silver-coated megaprostheses in patients with bone sarcoma. J Surg Oncol. 2010;101:389–395.Google Scholar
- 28.Horowitz SM, Lane JM, Otis JC, Healey JH. Prosthetic arthroplasty of the knee after resection of a sarcoma in the proximal end of the tibia: a report of sixteen cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73:286–293.Google Scholar
- 39.Lee SY, Baek GH. Limb-salvage operations in primary malignant tumors of the bone: interim report. J Korean Med Sci. 1990;5:205–212.Google Scholar
- 41.Lin CM, Chen YM, Po HL, Hseuh IH. Acute neurological deficits caused by cefipime: a case report and review of literature. Acta Neurol Taiwan. 2006;15:269–272.Google Scholar
- 42.Malawer MM, Chou LB. Prosthetic survival and clinical results with use of large-segment replacements in the treatment of high-grade bone sarcomas. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77:1154–1165.Google Scholar
- 52.Roberts P, Chan D, Grimer RJ, Sneath RS, Scales JT. Prosthetic replacement of the distal femur for primary bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73:762–769.Google Scholar
- 59.Shih LY, Sim FH, Pritchard DJ, Rock MG, Chao EY. Segmental total knee arthroplasty after distal femoral resection for tumor. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;292:269–281.Google Scholar
- 61.Sokolov T. Prosthetic knee replacement after resections for tumors. Ortopediya i Travmatologiya. . 2002;38:151–160.Google Scholar
- 62.Wunder JS, Leitch K, Griffin AM, Davis AM, Bell RS. Comparison of two methods of reconstruction for primary malignant tumors at the knee: a sequential cohort study. J Surg Oncol. 2001;77:89–99; discussion 100.Google Scholar