Orthopédie Traumatologie

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 5–11 | Cite as

The relation between wound and urine cultures and joint sepsis after hip and knee arthroplasty

  • A. B. Wymenga
  • H. L. Muytjens
  • J. R. Van Horn
  • A. Theeuwes
  • T. J. J. H. Slooff
Article

Abstract

The relation between wound and urine cultures and joint sepsis was analysed in a prospective study with 2651 hip and 362 knee replacements. All patients received peroperative cefuroxime. In 26 patients with joint sepsis, S.aureus (42%), S.epidermidis (12%), Gram-negative bacteria (24%) and anaerobic bacteria (4%) were identified as the causative agents. Cefuroxime covered this spectrum sufficiently. Joint sepsis was preceded by wound infection in 12 out of the 26 patients. Positive peroperative joint cultures (4.2%) were not related to joint sepsis. Positive postoperative woundcultures were clearly related to joint sepsis, except in case of isolation of S.epidermidis. Drain cultures were less reliable in predicting joint sepsis. Routine peroperative and drain cultures are therefore not indicated in primary joint replacement. Postoperative urinary tract infections (UTI) occurred in 15% of the patients and were strongly related to the use of indwelling catheters. The incidence of UTI increased with time the catheter was in situ. Removal before the third day is recommended, because five patients developed septicaemia having a catheter for more than 72 h. The increased risk for joint sepsis after hip replacement, in the presence of UTI in this study, could not be explained by early postoperative haematogenous bacterial seeding. There was no relation between the indwelling urinary catheters and joint sepsis.

Key words

Arthroplasty Hip Knee Prosthesis infection Urinary tract infection 
Relation entre plaie contaminée, sonde urinaire et infection articulaire dans les arthroplasties de hanche et de genou

Résumé

Les auteurs ont analysé la relation entre les prélèvements de plaie et cultures d'urine et les infections articulaires ultérieures dans une étude prospective portant sur 2 651 prothèses de hanche et 362 prothèses de genou. Tous les patients ont bénéficié d'une antibioprophylaxie per opératoire au cefuroxime. Dans 26 cas d'infection articulaire l'agent causal a été identifié: 42 % de St. aureus, 12 % de St. epidermidis, 24 % de germes Gram négatifs et 4 % de bactéries anaérobies. Le Cefuroxime couvrait correctement tous les spectres. L'infection articulaire était précédée de 12 infections de plaie opératoire sur 26 patients. Aucune relation n'a pu être retenue avec les 4,2 % de cultures positives des prélèvements per-opératoires. Par contre, il existe une relation nette entre les arthrites post-opératoires et les prélèvements post-opératoires positifs au niveau des plaies opératoires, sauf en ce qui concerne le St. epidermidis. Les cultures positives de drains n'ont pas permis de prédire l'infection articulaire. Dans ces conditions, les prélèvements per-opératoires et la mise en culture de drains ne semblent pas indiqués dans les cas d'arthroplastie primaire. L'infection urinaire post-opératoire survient chez 15 % de patients et est fortement en relation avec l'utilation de sondes à demeure. L'incidence de l'infection urinaire augmente avec la durée du sondage à demeure. L'ablation de la sonde est recommandée avant le 3ème jour post-opératoire, puisque 5 patients qui ont gardé la sonde plus de 72 h ont développé une septicémie. Dans cette étude l'augmentation du risque d'infection hématogène des prothèses de hanche, en cas d'infection urinaire, n'a pas pu être explorée au plan bactériologique dans la période post-opératoire précoce. Il n'y a pas de relation directe entre sonde urinaire et infection articulaire.

Mots-clés

Arthroplastie Hanche Genou Infection sur prothèse Infection urinaire 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Benson MKD, Hughes SPF (1975) Infection following total hip arthroplasty in a general-hospital without special orthopaedic facilities. Acta Orthop Scand 46: 968–978Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blomgren G (1981) Hematogenous infection of total joint replacement. Acta Orthop Scand [Suppl 187] 52: 7–63Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buchholz HW, Elson RAA, Engelbrecht E, Lodenkamper H, Rottger J, Siegel J (1981) Management of deep infection of total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 63: 342–353Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carlsson AS, Josefsson G, Lindberg L (1978) Revisions with gentamicin-impregnated cement for deep infections in total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 60: 1059–1064Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donovan TL, Gordon RO, Nagel DA (1976) Urinary tract infections in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 58: 1134–1137Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dupont JA (1986) Significance of operative cultures in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 211: 122–127Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ericsson C, Lidgren L (1973) Cloxacillin in the prophylaxis of postoperative infections of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 55: 808–813Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Evrard J; Doyon F, Acar JF, Salord JC, Mazas F, Flamant R (1988) Two-day cefamandole versus five-day cephazolin in 965 total hip replacements. Int Orthop 12: 69–73Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fitzgerald RH, Nolan DR, Ilstrup DM, Van Scoy RE, Washington II JA, Coventry MB (1977) Deep wound sepsis following total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 59: 847–855Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heydemann JS, Nelson CL (1986) Shortterm preventive antibiotics. Clin Orthop 205: 184–187Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hill C, Mazas F, Flamant R, Evrard J (1981) Prophylactic cefazolin versus placebo in total hip replacement. Lancet I: 795–797Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Inman RD, Gallegos KV, Brause BD, Redecha PB, Christian CL (1984) Clinical and microbial features of prosthetic joint infection. Am J Med 77: 47–53Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Irvine R, Johnson BL, Amstutz HC (1974) The relationship of genitourinary tract procedures and deep sepsis after total hip replacement. Surg Gyn Obstet 139: 701–706Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lortat-Jacob A, Bornert D, Coignard S, Beaufils Ph (1987) Infection in fractures of the upper end of the femur. French J Orthop Surg 1:105–113Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kamme CK, Lindberg L (1981) Aerobic and anaerobic bacteria in deep infections after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 154: 201–207Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lidwell OM, Lowbury EJL, Whyte W, Blowers R, Stanley SJ, Lowe D (1984) Infection and sepsis after operations for total hip or knee joint replacement. Influence of ultraclean air, prophylactic antibiotics and other factors. J Hyg Cambr 93: 504–529Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lidwell OM, Lowbury EJL, Whyte W, Blowers R, Stanley SJ, Lowe D (1982) Effect of ultraclean air in operating rooms on deep sepsis in the joint after total hip or knee replacement: A randomized study. Br Med J 285: 10–14Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lidwell OM, Lowbury EJL, Whyte W, Blowers R, Stanley SJ, Lowe D (1983) Bacteria isolated from deep joint sepsis after operation for total hip or knee replacement and the sources of the infections with staphyloccus aureus. J Hosp Inf 4: 19–29Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lidwell OM, Lowbury EJL, Whyte W, Blowers R, Stanley SJ, Lowe D (1983) Airborne contamination of wounds in joint replacement operations: the relationship to sepsis rates. J Hosp Inf 4: 111–131Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mulier JC, Cheng N, van Tournhout B, Vandepitte J, Debryune H (1981) Effect of combined use of a clean air system and one day prophylactic administration of cefamandole in total hip replacement. Arch Orthop Traum Surg 98: 29–33Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nelson JP (1984) Operating room environment: clean rooms and personnel-isolator systems. In: Eftekhar NS (ed) Infection in joint replacement surgery. Prevention and management, chap 7. CV Mosby, St Louis, pp 166–178Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pollard P, Hughes SPF, Scott JE, Evans MJ, Benson MKD (1978) Antibiotics prophylaxis in total hip replacement. Br Med J 1: 708–709Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rand JA, Fitzgerald RH (1989) Diagnosis and management of the infected total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 20: 201–210Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ritter MA, Stringer EA (1981) Intraoperative wound cultures: Their value and long-term effect on the patient. Clin Orthop 155: 180–185Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sanderson PJ (1981) The choice between prophylactic agents for orthopaedic surgery. J Hosp Inf 11 [SupplC]: 57–67Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stamm WE (1986) Nosocomial urinary tract infections. In: Benett JV, Brachman PS (eds) Hospital infections. Little, Brown and Co, Boston Toronto, pp 375–384Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Surin VV, Sundholm K, Backman L (1983) Infection after total hip replacement with special reference to a discharge from the wound. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 65-: 412–418Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tietjen R, Stinchfield FE, Michelsen CB (1977) The significance of intracapsular cultures in total hip operations. Surg Gyn Obst 144: 699–702Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Whyte W, Hodgson R, Tinkler J, Graham J (1981) The isolation of bacteria of low pathogenicity from faulty orthopaedic implants. J Hosp Inf 2: 219–230Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Willet KM, Simmons CD, Bentley G (1988) The effect of suction drains after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 70: 607–610Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wroblewski BM, Del Sel HJ (1980) Urethral instrumentation and deep sepsis in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 146: 208–212Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wymenga AB, Van Horn JR, Theeuwes A, Muytjens HL, Slooff TJJH (1992) Cefuroxime for prevention of postoperative coxitis. One versus three doses tested in a randomized multicenter study of 2651 arthroplasties. Acta Orthop Scand 63: 19–24Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wymenga AB (1991) Joint sepsis after prophylaxis with one or three doses of cefuroxime in hip and knee replacement surgery. Thesis, University of Nijmegen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wymenga AB, Van Horn JR, Theeuwes A, Muytjens HL, Slooff TJJH (1992) Perioperative factors associated with septic arthritis after arthroplasty. Prospective multicenter study of 362 knee and 2651 hip operations. Acta Orthop Scand 63: 665–671Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. B. Wymenga
    • 1
  • H. L. Muytjens
    • 2
  • J. R. Van Horn
    • 4
  • A. Theeuwes
    • 3
  • T. J. J. H. Slooff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryAcademic Hospital NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Medical MicrobiologyAcademic Hospital NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Medical Statistics DepartmentAcademic Hospital NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMedisch Spectrum TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations