Periprosthetic Joint Infection The Economic Impact of Methicillin-Resistant Infections

Rothman Institute of Orthopedics at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.
The Journal of arthroplasty (Impact Factor: 2.67). 09/2010; 25(6 Suppl):103-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.04.011
Source: PubMed


The orthopedic community has begun to witness a worrisome rise in the incidence of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) caused by resistant organisms. Besides other challenges associated with treating these infections, it appears that these infections may pose a higher cost compared to infections caused by sensitive organisms. Significantly higher cost of care for treatment of infections due to methicillin-resistant organisms were seen at a mean of $107,264 per case compared to $68,053 for treating PJI caused by sensitive strains (P < .0001). More effective strategies for preventing the spread of infections caused by resistant organisms need to be implemented to ease the social and economic strains facing the orthopedic community due to resistant organisms.

Download full-text


Available from: Javad Parvizi, Jan 24, 2014
77 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Deep infections are devastating complications of TKA often treated with component explantation, intravenous antibiotics, and antibiotic-impregnated cement spacers. Historically, the spacers have been static, which may limit patients' ROM and ability to walk. Several recent reports describe dynamic spacers, which may allow for improved ROM and make later reimplantation easier. However, because of several dynamic spacer problems noted at our institution, we wanted to assess their associated failures, reinfection rates, and functionality. We therefore asked whether there were differences between static and dynamic spacers in (1) reinfection rates, (2) complications directly related to the spacer, and (3) final patient functionality as measured by Knee Society objective scores and ROM. We retrospectively identified 111 patients (115 knees) with 34 dynamic spacers (30%) and 81 static spacers (70%). Reinfection rates, complications requiring additional surgery, and final Knee Society scores and ROM were collected for all patients. Reinfection rates were comparable between groups. In the dynamic spacer cohort, there were four complications; however, these could all be explained by surgical technical errors or patient weightbearing compliance. All patients with failed results eventually underwent successful two-stage exchange arthroplasty. Final Knee Society scores and ROM were also similar between groups. Reinfection rates, Knee Society scores, and ROM were comparable between the static and dynamic spacer groups. Meticulous surgical technique and proper patient selection should be used to avoid any complications with any spacers.
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 09/2011; 470(1):220-7. DOI:10.1007/s11999-011-2095-4 · 2.77 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is unclear whether simultaneous-bilateral total knee arthroplasty is as safe as staged-bilateral arthroplasty is. We are aware of no randomized trials comparing the safety of these surgical strategies. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively compare these two strategies, with use of an intention-to-treat approach for the staged-bilateral arthroplasty cohort. We used linked hospital discharge data to compare the safety of simultaneous-bilateral and staged-bilateral knee arthroplasty procedures performed in California between 1997 and 2007. Estimates were generated to take into account patients who had planned to undergo staged-bilateral arthroplasty but never underwent the second procedure because of death, a major complication, or elective withdrawal. Hierarchical logistic regression modeling was used to adjust the comparisons for patient and hospital characteristics. The principal outcomes of interest were death, a major complication involving the cardiovascular system, and a periprosthetic knee infection or mechanical malfunction requiring revision surgery. Records were available for 11,445 simultaneous-bilateral arthroplasty procedures and 23,715 staged-bilateral procedures. On the basis of an intermediate estimate of the number of complications that occurred after the first procedure in a staged-bilateral arthroplasty, patients who underwent simultaneous-bilateral arthroplasty had a significantly higher adjusted odds ratio (OR) of myocardial infarction (OR = 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2 to 2.2) and of pulmonary embolism (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.1 to 1.8), similar odds of death (OR = 1.3, 95% CI = 0.9 to 1.9) and of ischemic stroke (OR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.6 to 1.6), and significantly lower odds of major joint infection (OR = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.5 to 0.7) and of major mechanical malfunction (OR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.6 to 0.9) compared with patients who planned to undergo staged-bilateral arthroplasty. The unadjusted thirty-day incidence of death or a coronary event was 3.2 events per thousand patients higher after simultaneous-bilateral arthroplasty than after staged-bilateral arthroplasty, but the one-year incidence of major joint infection or major mechanical malfunction was 10.5 events per thousand lower after simultaneous-bilateral arthroplasty. Simultaneous-bilateral total knee arthroplasty was associated with a clinically important reduction in the incidence of periprosthetic joint infection and malfunction within one year after arthroplasty, but it was associated with a moderately higher risk of an adverse cardiovascular outcome within thirty days. If patients who are at higher risk for cardiovascular complications can be identified, simultaneous-bilateral knee arthroplasty may be the preferred surgical strategy for the remaining lower-risk patients.
    The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 12/2011; 93(23):2203-13. DOI:10.2106/JBJS.J.01350 · 5.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients who present with a periprosthetic joint infection in a single joint may have multiple prosthetic joints. The risk of these patients developing a subsequent infection in another prosthetic joint is unknown. Our purposes were (1) to identify the risk of developing a subsequent infection in another prosthetic joint and (2) to describe the time span and organism profile to the second prosthetic infection. We retrospectively identified 55 patients with periprosthetic joint infection who had another prosthetic joint in place at the time of presentation. Of the 55 patients, 11 (20%) developed a periprosthetic joint infection in a second joint. The type of organism was the same as the first infection in 4 (36%) of 11 patients. The time to developing a second infection averaged 2.0 years (range, 0-6.9 years).
    The Journal of arthroplasty 03/2012; 27(6):877-80. DOI:10.1016/j.arth.2012.01.002 · 2.67 Impact Factor
Show more