Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Intraoperative Considerations for Treatment/Prevention of Prosthetic Joint Infection

  • Prosthetic Joint Infection (S Nodzo and N Frisch, section editors)
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Innovative measures have recently been proposed to prevent periprosthetic joint infection following total hip and knee arthroplasty. We sought to review these recent innovations to determine the reported reduction in periprosthetic joint infection.

Recent Findings

The most recent literature demonstrates promising results in regard to hydrofiber dressings as an independent risk factor for primary prosthetic joint infection reduction, which in turn is also linked with cost savings. As our understanding of safe yet effective concentrations of antiseptic solutions develops, dilute betadine in particular has demonstrated encouraging efficacy which warrants continued investigation through controlled trials.

Summary

In summary, we found that the application of a hydrofiber dressing may prove beneficial in decreasing the risk of prosthetic joint infection following primary total hip and knee arthroplasty. The gold standard for an infection prevention protocol continues to be explored and optimized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance•• Of major Importance

  1. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Watson H, Schmier JK, Parvizi J. Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States. J Arthroplast. 2012;27(8, Supplement):61–5.e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bozic KJ, Lau E, Kurtz S, Ong K, Berry DJ. Patient-related risk factors for postoperative mortality and periprosthetic joint infection in medicare patients undergoing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(1):130–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. van Meurs SJ, Gawlitta D, Heemstra KA, Poolman RW, Vogely HC, Kruyt MC. Selection of an optimal antiseptic solution for intraoperative irrigation: an in vitro study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(4):285–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Oduwole KO, Glynn AA, Molony DC, Murray D, Rowe S, Holland LM, et al. Anti-biofilm activity of sub-inhibitory povidone-iodine concentrations against Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus. J Orthop Res. 2010;28(9):1252–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rodeheaver G, Bellamy W, Kody M, Spatafora G, Fitton L, Leyden K, et al. Bactericidal activity and toxicity of iodine-containing solutions in wounds. Arch Surg. 1982;117(2):181–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chundamala J, Wright JG. The efficacy and risks of using povidone-iodine irrigation to prevent surgical site infection: an evidence-based review. Can J Surg. 2007;50(6):473–81.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Sindelar WF, Mason GR. Efficacy of povidone-iodine irrigation in prevention of surgical wound infections. Surg Forum. 1977;28:48–51.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cheng M-T, Chang M-C, Wang S-T, Yu W-K, Liu C-L, Chen T-H. Efficacy of dilute betadine solution irrigation in the prevention of postoperative infection of spinal surgery. Spine. 2005;30(15):1689–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chang F-Y, Chang M-C, Wang S-T, Yu W-K, Liu C-L, Chen T-H. Can povidone-iodine solution be used safely in a spinal surgery? Eur Spine J. 2006;15(6):1005–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown NM, Cipriano CA, Moric M, Sporer SM, Della Valle CJ. Dilute betadine lavage before closure for the prevention of acute postoperative deep periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplast. 2012;27(1):27–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. • Hofmann KJ, Hayden BL, Kong Q, Pevear ME, Cassidy C, Smith EL. Triple prophylaxis for the prevention of surgical site infections in total joint arthroplasty. Curr Orthop Pract. 2017;28(1):66. Reported a reduction in SSI from 2 to 0.7% ( p = 0.08), including PJI (1.4 to 0.2% ( p = 0.02)) following institution of a protocol of preop nasal mupericin, addition of vancomycin to preoperative antibiotics, and incorporating an intraoperative betadine irrigation in their total joint arthroplasty patients.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hidalgo E, Dominguez C. Mechanisms underlying chlorhexidine-induced cytotoxicity. Toxicol In Vitro. 2001;15(4–5):271–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lindgren KE, Pelt CE, Anderson MB, Peters CL, Spivak ES, Gililland JM. A chlorhexidine solution reduces aerobic organism growth in operative splash basins in a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplast. 2018;33(1):211–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Frisch NB, Kadri OM, Tenbrunsel T, Abdul-Hak A, Qatu M, Davis JJ. Intraoperative chlorhexidine irrigation to prevent infection in total hip and knee arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today. 2017;3(4):294–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Larson E. Guideline for use of topical antimicrobial agents. Am J Infect Control. 1988;16(6):253–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Edmiston CE, Bruden B, Rucinski MC, Henen C, Graham MB, Lewis BL. Reducing the risk of surgical site infections: does chlorhexidine gluconate provide a risk reduction benefit? Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(5 Suppl):S49–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Smith DC, Maiman R, Schwechter EM, Kim SJ, Hirsh DM. Optimal irrigation and debridement of infected Total joint implants with chlorhexidine gluconate. J Arthroplast. 2015;30(10):1820–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ruder JA, Springer BD. Treatment of periprosthetic joint infection using antimicrobials: dilute povidone-iodine lavage. J Bone Jt Infect. 2017;2(1):10–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Campbell ST, Goodnough LH, Bennett CG, Giori NJ. Antiseptics commonly used in total joint arthroplasty interact and may form toxic products. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(3):844–846.

  20. Berg A, Fleischer S, Kuss O, Unverzagt S, Langer G. Timing of dressing removal in the healing of surgical wounds by primary intention: quantitative systematic review protocol. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68(2):264–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Galat DD, McGovern SC, Larson DR, Harrington JR, Hanssen AD, Clarke HD. Surgical treatment of early wound complications following primary total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):48–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Carroll K, Dowsey M, Choong P, Peel T. Risk factors for superficial wound complications in hip and knee arthroplasty. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(2):130–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kuo F-C, Chen B, Lee MS, Yen S-H, Wang J-W. AQUACEL® Ag surgical dressing reduces surgical site infection and improves patient satisfaction in minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled study [Internet]. Biomed Res Int 2017 [cited 2017 Nov 19]. Available from: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2017/1262108/

  24. Jones SA, Bowler PG, Walker M, Parsons D. Controlling wound bioburden with a novel silver-containing hydrofiber dressing. Wound Repair Regen. 2004;12(3):288–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hurlow J. AQUACEL® Ag dressing with Hydrofiber® Technology. Adv Wound Care. 2012;1(2):104–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Langlois J, Zaoui A, Ozil C, Courpied J-P, Anract P, Hamadouche M. Randomized controlled trial of conventional versus modern surgical dressings following primary total hip and knee replacement. Int Orthop. 2015;39(7):1315–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dobbelaere A, Schuermans N, Smet S, Van Der Straeten C, Victor J. Comparative study of innovative postoperative wound dressings after total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg. 2015;81(3):454–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. •• Springer BD, Beaver WB, Griffin WL, Mason JB, Odum SM. Role of Surgical Dressings in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2015;44(9):415–20. They found statistical significance in regard to less wound complications (10 vs 22%, p = 0.015) and blistering (0.7 vs 6%, p = 0.026) in the Aquacel Ag group compared to their control Primapore (Smith and Nephew).

    Google Scholar 

  29. •• Cai J, Karam JA, Parvizi J, Smith EB, Sharkey PF. Aquacel surgical dressing reduces the rate of acute PJI following total joint arthroplasty: a case–control study. J Arthroplast. 2014;29(6):1098–100. Decreased rate of prosthetic joint infection in the Aquacel group (0.44 vs 1.7%, p = 0.005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. •• Grosso MJ, Berg A, LaRussa S, Murtaugh T, Trofa DP, Geller JA. Silver-impregnated occlusive dressing reduces rates of acute periprosthetic joint infection after total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2017;32(3):929–32. Acute PJI within 3 months post arthroplasty, in which 605 Aquacel Ag dressings were compared to 568 sterile xeroform dressings. Similar to Cai et al., a significant lower incidence of PJI (0.33 vs 1.58%, p = 0.03) was again found in the Aquacel Ag group.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Chowdhry M, Chen AF. Wound dressings for primary and revision total joint arthroplasty. Ann Transl Med. 2015;3(18):268.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Sharma G, Lee SW, Atanacio O, Parvizi J, Kim TK. In search of the optimal wound dressing material following total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Orthop. 2017;41(7):1295–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Chen KK, Elbuluk AM, Vigdorchik JM, Long WJ, Schwarzkopf R. The effect of wound dressings on infection following total joint arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today [Internet]. 2017. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352344117300286 .

  34. Manoharan V, Grant AL, Harris AC, Hazratwala K, Wilkinson MPR, McEwen PJC. Closed incision negative pressure wound therapy vs conventional dry dressings after primary knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled study. J Arthroplast. 2016;31(11):2487–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. •• Cooper HJ, Bas MA. Closed-incision negative-pressure therapy versus antimicrobial dressings after revision hip and knee surgery: a comparative study. J Arthroplast. 2016;31(5):1047–52. Despite a group generally deemed higher risk in the NPWT, they were able to demonstrate statistically significant less wound complications (6.7 vs 26.9%, p = 0.024) and surgical site infections (3.3 vs 18.5%, p = 0.045).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Adámková M, Tymonová J, Zámecníková I, Kadlcík M, Klosová H. First experience with the use of vacuum assisted closure in the treatment of skin defects at the burn center. Acta Chir Plast. 2005;47(1):24–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Scherer SS, Pietramaggiori G, Mathews JC, Prsa MJ, Huang S, Orgill DP. The mechanism of action of the vacuum-assisted closure device. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122(3):786–97.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Huang C, Leavitt T, Bayer LR, Orgill DP. Effect of negative pressure wound therapy on wound healing. Curr Probl Surg. 2014;51(7):301–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wilkes RP, Kilpad DV, Zhao Y, Kazala R, McNulty A. Closed incision management with negative pressure wound therapy (CIM): biomechanics. Surg Innov. 2012;19(1):67–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. • Shohat N, Parvizi J. Prevention of periprosthetic joint infection: examining the recent guidelines. J Arthroplast. 2017;32(7):2040–6. The WHO and the CDC support that there is evidence in favor of the use of NPWT in high-risk arthroplasty patients; however, this was graded as weak.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Willy C, Agarwal A, Andersen CA, Santis GD, Gabriel A, Grauhan O, et al. Closed incision negative pressure therapy: international multidisciplinary consensus recommendations. Int Wound J. 2017;14(2):385–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Semsarzadeh NN, Tadisina KK, Maddox J, Chopra K, Singh DP. Closed incision negative-pressure therapy is associated with decreased surgical-site infections: a meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(3):592–602.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. • Gillespie BM, Rickard CM, Thalib L, Kang E, Finigan T, Homer A, et al. Use of negative-pressure wound dressings to prevent surgical site complications after primary hip arthroplasty: a pilot RCT. Surg Innov. 2015;22(5):488–95. Non-significant reduction in SSIs (5.7% NPWT vs 8.6% control (hydrocolloid dressing), p = 0.65); however, they found that there was a statistically significant higher absolute number of any complications (68.5 vs 42.8% ( p = 0.04)) in the NPWT group.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pauser J, Nordmeyer M, Biber R, Jantsch J, Kopschina C, Bail HJ, et al. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy after hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures—reduction of wound complications. Int Wound J. 2016;13(5):663–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Karlakki SL, Hamad AK, Whittall C, Graham NM, Banerjee RD, Kuiper JH. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy dressings (iNPWTd) in routine primary hip and knee arthroplasties: a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res. 2016;5(8):328–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Redfern RE, Cameron-Ruetz C, O’Drobinak SK, Chen JT, Beer KJ. Closed incision negative pressure therapy effects on postoperative infection and surgical site complication after total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2017;32(11):3333–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. •• Cooper HJ, Roc GC, Bas MA, Berliner ZP, Hepinstall MS, Rodriguez JA, et al. Closed incision negative pressure therapy decreases complications after periprosthetic fracture surgery around the hip and knee. Injury. 2018;49(2):386–91. NPWT group had statistically reduced wound complications (4 vs 35%, p = 0.002), but also saw a decrease in deep prosthetic joint infections (0 vs 25%, p = 0.004) and reoperations related to wound issues (4 vs 25%, p = 0.021).

  48. Siqueira MB, Ramanathan D, Klika AK, Higuera CA, Barsoum WK. Role of negative pressure wound therapy in total hip and knee arthroplasty. World J Orthop. 2016;7(1):30–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Randelli P, Evola FR, Cabitza P, Polli L, Denti M, Vaienti L. Prophylactic use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in primary total knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010;18(2):181–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Bourne RB. Prophylactic use of antibiotic bone cement: an emerging standard—in the affirmative. J Arthroplast. 2004;19(4 Suppl 1):69–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Malchau H, Herberts P, Ahnfelt L. Prognosis of total hip replacement in Sweden. Follow-up of 92,675 operations performed 1978-1990. Acta Orthop Scand. 1993;64(5):497–506.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Wilson NI. A survey, in Scotland, of measures to prevent infection following orthopaedic surgery. J Hosp Infect. 1987;9(3):235–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Jiranek WA, Hanssen AD, Greenwald AS. Antibiotic-loaded bone cement for infection prophylaxis in total joint replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(11):2487–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Chiu F-Y, Chen C-M, Lin C-FJ, Lo W-H. Cefuroxime-impregnated cement in primary total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized study of three hundred and forty knees. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A(5):759–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Parvizi J, Saleh KJ, Ragland PS, Pour AE, Mont MA. Efficacy of antibiotic-impregnated cement in total hip replacement. Acta Orthop. 2008;79(3):335–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gutowski CJ, Zmistowski BM, Clyde CT, Parvizi J. The economics of using prophylactic antibiotic-loaded bone cement in total knee replacement. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(1):65–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. •• Sanz-Ruiz P, Matas-Diez JA, Sanchez-Somolinos M, Villanueva-Martinez M, Vaquero-Martín J. Is the commercial antibiotic-loaded bone cement useful in prophylaxis and cost saving after knee and hip joint arthroplasty? The transatlantic paradox. J Arthroplast. 2017;32(4):1095–9. Largest recent publication with the routine use of ALBC in primary hip and knee arthroplasty. They found a 57% overall decrease in PJI ( p = 0.001) with the use of ALBC.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Namba RS, Chen Y, Paxton EW, Slipchenko T, Fithian DC. Outcomes of routine use of antibiotic-loaded cement in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2009;24(6 Suppl):44–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. McQueen M, Littlejohn A, Hughes SP. A comparison of systemic cefuroxime and cefuroxime loaded bone cement in the prevention of early infection after total joint replacement. Int Orthop. 1987;11(3):241–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Josefsson G, Kolmert L. Prophylaxis with systematic antibiotics versus gentamicin bone cement in total hip arthroplasty. A ten-year survey of 1,688 hips. Clin Orthop. 1993;(292):210–4.

  61. Qadir R, Sidhu S, Ochsner JL, Meyer MS, Chimento GF. Risk stratified usage of antibiotic-loaded bone cement for primary total knee arthroplasty: short term infection outcomes with a standardized cement protocol. J Arthroplast. 2014;29(8):1622–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. McKee MD, Li-Bland EA, Wild LM, Schemitsch EH. A prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing an antibiotic-impregnated bioabsorbable bone substitute with standard antibiotic-impregnated cement beads in the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis and infected nonunion. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24(8):483–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Oga M, Sugioka Y, Hobgood CD, Gristina AG, Myrvik QN. Surgical biomaterials and differential colonization by Staphylococcus epidermidis. Biomaterials. 1988;9(3):285–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Howlin RP, Brayford MJ, Webb JS, Cooper JJ, Aiken SS, Stoodley P. Antibiotic-loaded synthetic calcium sulfate beads for prevention of bacterial colonization and biofilm formation in periprosthetic infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(1):111–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. McPherson E, Facs M, Matthew Dipane BA, Sherif Sherif MD. Dissolvable antibiotic beads in treatment of periprosthetic joint infection and revision arthroplasty—the use of synthetic pure calcium sulfate (Stimulan®) Impregnated with vancomycin & tobramycin. Reconstr Rev [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2018 Mar 4];3(1). Available from: https://www.reconstructivereview.org/ojs/index.php/rr/article/view/27 .

  66. Sanicola SM, Albert SF. The in vitro elution characteristics of vancomycin and tobramycin from calcium sulfate beads. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2005;44(2):121–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. •• Flierl MA, Culp BM, Okroj KT, Springer BD, Levine BR, Della Valle CJ. Poor outcomes of irrigation and debridement in acute periprosthetic joint infection with antibiotic-impregnated calcium sulfate beads. J Arthroplast. 2017;32(8):2505–7. In this series of 33 patients treated with irrigation and debridement with the addition of antibiotic impregnated calcium sulfate beads, 16 patients failed and went on to a two-stage exchange or chronic antibiotic suppression.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Kallala R, Haddad FS. Hypercalcaemia following the use of antibiotic-eluting absorbable calcium sulphate beads in revision arthroplasty for infection. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(9):1237–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 West Harrison St, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA

    Linda I. Suleiman, Daniel R. Mesko & Denis Nam

Authors
  1. Linda I. Suleiman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel R. Mesko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Denis Nam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denis Nam.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Denis Nam reports Paid Consultant: Acelity Inc., ZimmerBiomet Inc., Stryker Inc. Research Support: Acelity Inc., ZimmerBiomet Inc. Stock Options: OrthoAlign Inc.

The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Prosthetic Joint Infection

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Suleiman, L.I., Mesko, D.R. & Nam, D. Intraoperative Considerations for Treatment/Prevention of Prosthetic Joint Infection. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 11, 401–408 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-018-9502-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-018-9502-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation