Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Empirical Antibiotic Therapy in Primary Arthroplasty and Periprosthetic Joint Infections: Current Practice and Need for Therapy Optimization. / Antibiotikaprophylaxe und empirische Antibiotikatherapie bei Primärendoprothetik und periprothetischen Gelenkinfektionen: Aktuelle Praxis und Bedarf an Therapieoptimierung.

The aim of the present work was to survey the situation of healthcare regarding the use of prophylactic and empirical antibiotics in primary arthroplasty and treatment of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). For this purpose, a survey was conducted at German university and occupational accident hospitals. Survey data was compared to previously published data on the antimicrobial regimes of PJI (n=81) patients (n=81) treated in our department between 2017 and 2020. A homogeneous picture emerged for the prophylactic administration of antibiotics in the context of primary arthroplasty. In 93.2% (elective) and 88.6% (fracture treatment) of the hospitals, first or second generation cephalosporins were administered perioperatively for infection prophylaxis in primary hip arthroplasty. The empirical antibiotic treatment of PJIs showed a clearly inhomogeneous therapeutic picture. Monotherapy with an aminopenicillin plus a beta-lactamase inhibitor is used most frequently (38.7%); first and second generation cephalosporins are used second most frequently as monotherapy (18.2%). In light of the global problem of antibiotic multi-resistance, clinical use of antibiotics has to be reasonable and effective. The present results highlight the further need to improve awareness and following existing guidelines in the administration of empirical antibiotic therapy in PJI.

Posttraumatic stress disorder after minor trauma - A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can arise as a reaction to a traumatic experience. While many data concerning PTSD in severely injured patients are available, little is known about this disease in slightly injured patients after road traffic accidents. It is rather assumed that PTSD does not exist after objectively slight injuries. METHODS: In total, 36 patients (Injury Severity Score < 16) after road traffic accidents were included in this prospective cohort study. Next to demographic and accident-specific data, the PDI (Peritraumatic Distress Inventory: individual experienced distress directly during or immediately after the traumatic event), THQ (Trauma History Questionnaire) and the BDI-II (Beck Depression Inventory-II: self-report measurement tool to examine the severity of depression) were assessed immediately after trauma (t0). Six weeks (t1) and 3 months (t2) after trauma the Impact of Event Scale - Revised (IES-R), a screening instrument for PTSD, and the BDI-II were collected. RESULTS: Overall 2 patients showed critical measurement values in IES-R after 6 weeks. A strong correlation between PDI and IES-R at t1 and t2 could be detected (p < 0.05). Furthermore, a significant correlation of BDI-II and IES-R after 6 weeks and 3 months was found (p < 0.05). Neither age or sex showed a significant correlation to IES-R (p ≥ 0.05). CONCLUSION: The present study showed that symptoms of PTSD can also occur after minor trauma. Especially high peritraumatic distress is associated with developing a PTSD. The occurrence of PTSD should be considered not only in severely injured patients, but also in slightly injured patients after road traffic accidents.

A trauma network with centralized and local health care structures: Evaluating the effectiveness of the first certified Trauma Network of the German Society of Trauma Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is a global burden of disease and one of the main causes of death worldwide. Therefore, many countries around the world have implemented a wide range of different initiatives to minimize mortality rates after trauma. One of these initiatives is the bundling of treatment expertise in trauma centers and the establishment of trauma networks. Germany has a decentralized system of trauma care medical centers. Severely injured patients ought to receive adequate treatment in both level I and level II centers. This study investigated the effectiveness of a decentralized network and the question whether level I and level II centers have comparable patient outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2009, the first trauma network DGU® in Germany was certified in the rural area of Eastern Bavaria. All patients admitted to the 25 participating hospitals were prospectively included in this network in the framework of a study sponsored by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research between March 2012 and February 2014. 2 hospitals were level I centers (maximal care centers), 8 hospitals were level II centers, and 15 hospitals were level III centers. The criterion for study inclusion was an injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 16 for patients´ primarily admitted to a level I or a level II center. Exclusion criteria were transferal to another hospital within 48 h, an unknown revised injury severity classification II score (RISC II), or primary admittance to a level III center (n = 52). 875 patients were included in the study. Univariate analyses were used regarding the preclinical and clinical parameters, the primary endpoint mortality rate, and the secondary endpoints length of stay, organ failure, and neurological outcome (GOS). The primary endpoint was additionally evaluated by means of multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Indices for injury severity (GCS, AISHead, ISS, and NISS) as well as the predicted probability of death (RISC II) were higher in level I centers than in level II centers. No significant differences were found between the mortality rate of the unadjusted analysis [level I: 21.6% (CI: 16.5, 27.9), level II: 18.1% (CI: 14.4, 22.5), p = 0.28] and that of the adjusted analysis [level I SMR: 0.94 (CI: 0.72, 1.21), level II SMR: 1.18 (CI 0.95, 1.48) SMR: expected vs. calculated mortality rate according to RISC II]. Multivariable analysis showed a survival advantage of patients admitted to a level I center with a probability of death of 13% (RISC II). The number need to treat was 10 patients. DISCUSSION: This study showed that a rural trauma network with centralized and local structures may achieve equivalent results with regard to mortality rates to those obtained in level I and level II centers. These results were furthered by a certain preclinical centralization (24/7 air rescue) of patients. The study also showed a survival advantage of patients admitted to a level I center with a probability of death of 13%. Preclinical and initial clinical evaluation with regard to probable mortality rates should be further improved to identify patients who would benefit from admittance to a level I center.