Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis After Aseptic Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty Revisions: A Preliminary Report

J Arthroplasty. 2023 Jan;38(1):141-145. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.08.003. Epub 2022 Aug 8.

Abstract

Background: It is unknown whether extended oral antibiotic (EOA) prophylaxis reduces periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates after aseptic revision total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA). The literature is scarce. Therefore, we sought to ascertain whether EOA prophylaxis decreases PJI rates after aseptic first-time revision THA and TKA when compared to standard prophylaxis.

Methods: This is a retrospective review of 328 consecutive revisions (3 surgeons, single institution, from September 27, 2017 to December 31, 2019). Preoperative 2013 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, radiographs, and medications were reviewed. Inclusion criteria included aseptic first-time revision THA and TKA. Exclusion criteria were positive intraoperative cultures and/or histology, PJI (2013 MSIS criteria), hemiarthroplasty/partial arthroplasty revision, revision using foreign material (ie, mesh), metastatic bone disease, and intravenous antibiotics >24 hours after surgery. A total of 178 revisions were included, and 2 groups were set apart based on antibiotic prophylactic regime. The following were the groups: (1) EOA prophylaxis (>24 hours, n = 93) and (2) standard prophylaxis (≤24 hours, n = 85). Demographics, joint types, lengths of stay, skin-to-skin operative times, revision types, transfusions, discharge dispositions, and PJIs (per 2013 MSIS criteria) after the first-time revision were compared between groups. There were no significant differences in demographics. However, skin-to-skin operative time was significantly higher in the EOA group (123 minutes versus 98 minutes, P = .01). Mean follow-up was 849 days (range, 15-1,671). Statistical significance was set at a P value lower than .05.

Results: Postoperative PJI rates were not significantly different: 2.2% EOA prophylaxis versus 3.5% standard prophylaxis (P = .671).

Conclusion: No significant difference was found between PJI rates between both prophylactic regimens. A large multicenter study with a larger sample size is needed to support EOA after aseptic revisions.

Level of evidence: Level III.

Keywords: aseptic revision; extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis; periprosthetic joint infection; total hip arthroplasty; total knee arthroplasty.

Publication types

  • Multicenter Study

MeSH terms

  • Anti-Bacterial Agents / therapeutic use
  • Antibiotic Prophylaxis
  • Arthritis, Infectious* / surgery
  • Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip* / adverse effects
  • Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee* / adverse effects
  • Humans
  • Prosthesis-Related Infections* / etiology
  • Prosthesis-Related Infections* / prevention & control
  • Prosthesis-Related Infections* / surgery
  • Reoperation
  • Retrospective Studies

Substances

  • Anti-Bacterial Agents