[Structured approach for infected prosthesis]. / Strukturiertes Vorgehen bei infizierter Prothese.

BACKGROUND: Endoprosthesis infections represent a major challenge for doctors and patients. Due to the increase in endoprosthesis implantation because of the increasing life expectancy, an increase in endoprosthesis infections is to be expected. In addition to infection prophylaxis, methods of infection control become highly relevant, especially in the group of geriatric and multimorbid patients. The aim is to reduce the high 1­year mortality from prosthesis infections through a structured algorithm. ALGORITHM FOR PROSTHESIS INFECTIONS: Prosthesis infections can basically be divided into early and late infections. According to the criteria of the International Consensus Meeting, a late infection is defined as the occurrence more than 30 days after implantation. With respect to the planned approach, the (p)TNM classification offers an orientation. In the early postoperative interval the clinical appearance is crucial as in this phase neither laboratory parameters nor an analysis of synovial fluid show a high sensitivity. It is fundamental that, apart from patients with sepsis, environment diagnostics should be initiated. If a late infection is suspected, in addition to radiological diagnostics (X-ray, skeletal scintigraphy and if necessary, computed tomography, CT), laboratory (C-reactive protein, CRP, leukocytes, blood sedimentation, and if necessary, interleukin­6, procalcitonin) and microbiological diagnostics (arthrocentesis with synovial analysis and microbiology) are indicated; however, in addition to the arthrocentesis result, the clinical appearance is crucial in cases where an exclusion cannot be confirmed by laboratory parameters. If an infection is confirmed, the treatment depends on the spectrum of pathogens, the soft tissue situation and the comorbidities, including a multistage procedure with temporary explantation and, if necessary, implantation of an antibiotic-containing spacer is necessary. A prosthesis preservation using the debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) regimen is only appropriate in an acute infection situation. Basically, radical surgical debridement should be carried out to reduce the pathogen load and treatment of a possible biofilm formation for both early and late infections. The subsequent antibiotic treatment (short or long interval) should be coordinated with the infectious disease specialists. CONCLUSION: A structured approach for prosthesis infections oriented to an evidence-based algorithm provides a sufficient possibility of healing. An interdisciplinary approach involving cooperation between orthopedic and infectious disease specialists has proven to be beneficial. Surgical treatment with the aim of reducing the bacterial load by removing the biofilm with subsequent antibiotic treatment is of intrinsic importance.

Preoperative Decolonization Appears to Reduce the Risk of Infection in High-Risk Groups Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic infections represent a major challenge for doctors and patients. The aim of this study was therefore to determine whether the risk of infection can be positively influenced by preoperative decolonization of the skin and mucous membranes. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of 3082 patients who had undergone THA between 2014 and 2020, preoperative decolonization with octenidine dihydrochlorid was performed in the intervention group. In an interval of 30 days, soft tissue and prosthesis infections were detected, and an evaluation between the study groups was made by using a bilateral t-test regarding the presence of an early infection. The study groups were identical with regard to the ASA score, comorbidities, and risk factors. RESULTS: Patients treated preoperatively with the octenidine dihydrochloride protocol showed lower early infection rates. In the group of intermediate- and high-risk patients (ASA 3 and higher), there was generally a significantly increased risk. The risk of wound or joint infection within 30 days was 1.99% higher for patients with ASA 3 or higher than for patients with standard care (4.11% [13/316] vs. 2.02% [10/494]; p = 0.08, relative risk 2.03). Preoperative decolonization shows no effect on the risk of infection that increases with age, and a gender-specific effect could not be detected. Looking at the body mass index, it could be shown that sacropenia or obesity leads to increased infection rates. Preoperative decolonization led to lower infection rates in percentage terms, which, however, did not prove to be significant (BMI < 20 1.98% [5/252] vs. 1.31% [5/382], relative risk 1.43, BMI > 30 2.58% [5/194] vs. 1.20% [4/334], relative risk 2.15). In the spectrum of patients with diabetes, it could be shown that preoperative decolonization leads to a significantly lower risk of infection (infections without protocol 18.3% (15/82), infections with protocol 8.50% (13/153), relative risk 2.15, p = 0.04. CONCLUSION: Preoperative decolonization appears to show a benefit, especially for the high-risk groups, despite the fact that in this patient group there is a high potential for resulting complications.