Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implementation of a multidisciplinary infections conference affects the treatment plan in prosthetic joint infections of the hip: a retrospective study

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Establishing a systematic multidisciplinary approach in the treatment of prosthetic joint infections (PJI) of the hip and analyzing its effect on clinical decision-making.

Patients and methods

Forty-six patients diagnosed with PJI of the hip were included in the retrospective study. The treatment plan was either established by a single-discipline approach (n = 20) or by a weekly multidisciplinary infections conference (n = 26) consisting of at least an orthopedic surgeon, microbiologist and pathologist. Recorded data included the length of hospital stay, number and type of surgeries, medical complications, recovered organisms as well as the number of applied antibiotics.

Results

Patients discussed in the multidisciplinary infections conference showed a significantly shorter in-hospital stay (29 vs 62 days; p < 0.05), a significant reduction in surgeries (1.8 vs 5.1; p < 0.05) and a smaller number of antibiotics required (2.8 vs 4.2; p < 0.05). No significant difference could be found comparing inpatient complications between the two groups. Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most frequently recovered organisms in both patient groups.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the successful implementation of a weekly infections conference as an instrument to introduce a multidisciplinary approach to PJI of the hip. Implementation of these conferences significantly improves the treatment plan compared to a single-discipline approach, which we therefore highly recommend for other institutions. Multidiscipline may even affect clinical outcome which needs to be further investigated.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wright FC, De Vito C, Langer B et al (2007) Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: a systematic review and development of practice standards. Eur J Cancer Oxf Engl 1990 43:1002–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2007.01.025

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pillay B, Wootten AC, Crowe H et al (2016) The impact of multidisciplinary team meetings on patient assessment, management and outcomes in oncology settings: a systematic review of the literature. Cancer Treat Rev 42:56–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.11.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Newman EA, Guest AB, Helvie MA et al (2006) Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board. Cancer 107:2346–2351. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Foster TJ, Bouchard-Fortier A, Olivotto IA, Quan ML (2016) Effect of multidisciplinary case conferences on physician decision making: breast diagnostic rounds. Cureus 8:e895. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.895

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. El Saghir NS, Keating NL, Carlson RW et al (2014) Tumor boards: optimizing the structure and improving efficiency of multidisciplinary management of patients with cancer worldwide. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book Am Soc Clin Oncol Meet. https://doi.org/10.14694/EdBook_AM.2014.34.e461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sundi D, Cohen JE, Cole AP et al (2015) Establishment of a new prostate cancer multidisciplinary clinic: format and initial experience. Prostate 75:191–199. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.22904

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kelly SL, Jackson JE, Hickey BE et al (2013) Multidisciplinary clinic care improves adherence to best practice in head and neck cancer. Am J Otolaryngol 34:57–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2012.08.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Guren E, Figved W, Frihagen F et al (2017) Prosthetic joint infection-a devastating complication of hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture. Acta Orthop 88:383–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2017.1301009

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Tande AJ, Patel R (2014) Prosthetic joint infection. Clin Microbiol Rev 27:302–345. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00111-13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Ridgeway S, Wilson J, Charlet A et al (2005) Infection of the surgical site after arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Jt Surg Br 87:844–850. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87B6.15121

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Merrer J, Girou E, Lortat-Jacob A et al (2007) Surgical site infection after surgery to repair femoral neck fracture: a French multicenter retrospective study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 28:1169–1174. https://doi.org/10.1086/520745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tande AJ, Gomez-Urena EO, Berbari EF, Osmon DR (2017) Management of prosthetic joint infection. Infect Dis Clin N Am 31:237–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idc.2017.01.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Strange S, Whitehouse MR, Beswick AD et al (2016) One-stage or two-stage revision surgery for prosthetic hip joint infection—the INFORM trial: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 17:90. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1213-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Kapadia BH, Berg RA, Daley JA et al (2016) Periprosthetic joint infection. Lancet Lond Engl 387:386–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61798-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Moore AJ, Whitehouse MR, Gooberman-Hill R et al (2017) A UK national survey of care pathways and support offered to patients receiving revision surgery for prosthetic joint infection in the highest volume NHS orthopaedic centres. Musculoskelet Care 15:379–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.1186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kini SG, Gabr A, Das R et al (2016) Two-stage revision for periprosthetic hip and knee joint infections. Open Orthop J 10:579–588. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001610010579

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF et al (2011) New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop 469:2992–2994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2102-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Parvizi J, Gehrke T, International Consensus Group on Periprosthetic Joint Infection (2014) Definition of periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty 29:1331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg 240:205–213. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Brauer DG, Strand MS, Sanford DE et al (2017) Utility of a multidisciplinary tumor board in the management of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal diseases: an observational study. HPB 19:133–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2016.11.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Keating NL, Landrum MB, Lamont EB et al (2013) Tumor boards and the quality of cancer care. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 105:113–121. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djs502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lutterbach J, Pagenstecher A, Spreer J et al (2005) The brain tumor board: lessons to be learned from an interdisciplinary conference. Onkologie 28:22–26. https://doi.org/10.1159/000082124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Greer HO, Frederick PJ, Falls NM et al (2010) Impact of a weekly multidisciplinary tumor board conference on the management of women with gynecologic malignancies. Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc 20:1321–1325. https://doi.org/10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181f5871e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lesslie M, Parikh JR (2017) Implementing a multidisciplinary tumor board in the community practice setting. Diagnostics. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics7040055

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE (2004) Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med 351:1645–1654. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra040181

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lamagni T (2014) Epidemiology and burden of prosthetic joint infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 69:i5–i10. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dku247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee HD, Prashant K, Shon WY (2015) Management of periprosthetic hip joint infection. Hip Pelvis 27:63–71. https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2015.27.2.63

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Pulido L, Ghanem E, Joshi A et al (2008) Periprosthetic joint infection: the incidence, timing, and predisposing factors. Clin Orthop 466:1710–1715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0209-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Hernández-Vaquero D, Fernández-Fairen M, Torres A et al (2013) Treatment of periprosthetic infections: an economic analysis. Sci World J 2013:. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/821650

  30. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Watson H et al (2012) Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States. J Arthroplasty 27:61–65.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted at the Department of Trauma-, Hand-, and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf. No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. This study was supported by the Damp Foundation (Project 2013-19).

Funding

There is no funding source.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma-, Hand-, and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany

    Dimitris Ntalos, J. Berger-Groch, M. J. Hartel & T. O. Klatte

  2. Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

    H. Rohde & A. Both

  3. Institute of Pathology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

    A. Luebke

  4. Department of Orthopaedic, Trauma and Spine Surgery, Asklepios Hospital Altona, Hamburg, Germany

    L. G. Grossterlinden

Authors
  1. Dimitris Ntalos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Berger-Groch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Rohde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. G. Grossterlinden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Both
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Luebke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. J. Hartel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. T. O. Klatte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitris Ntalos.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

D. Ntalos, J. Berger-Groch, H. Rohde, L. G. Grossterlinden, A. Both, A. Luebke, M. J. Hartel and T. O. Klatte declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human/animal rights statement

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ntalos, D., Berger-Groch, J., Rohde, H. et al. Implementation of a multidisciplinary infections conference affects the treatment plan in prosthetic joint infections of the hip: a retrospective study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 139, 467–473 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-3079-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-3079-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation