Article

Surgical site infection in the elderly following orthopaedic surgery - Risk factors and outcomes

Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Impact Factor: 4.31). 09/2006; 88(8):1705-12. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.E.01156
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Risk factor and outcomes data pertaining to surgical site infection in the elderly following orthopaedic operations are lacking. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for surgical site infections and to quantify the impact of these infections on health outcomes in elderly patients following orthopaedic surgery.
A risk factor and outcomes study was performed at Duke University Medical Center, a tertiary care center, and seven community hospitals in North Carolina and Virginia between 1991 and 2002. The study included elderly patients in whom a surgical site infection had developed following orthopaedic surgery and elderly patients in whom a surgical site infection had not developed following orthopaedic surgery (controls). Outcome measures included mortality during the one-year postoperative period and the total length of the hospital stay (including readmissions during the ninety-day postoperative period).
One hundred and sixty-nine patients with a surgical site infection were identified, and 171 controls were selected. The mean age of the patients was 74.7 years. The most frequent procedures were hip arthroplasty (n = 74, 22%) and open reduction of fractures (n = 55, 16%). The most common pathogen was Staphylococcus aureus (n = 95, 56%). A risk factor for surgical site infection, identified in the multivariate analysis, was admission from a health-care facility (odds ratio = 4.35; 95% confidence interval = 1.64, 11.11). Multivariate analysis also indicated that surgical site infection was a strong predictor of mortality (odds ratio = 3.80; 95% confidence interval = 1.49, 9.70) and an increased length of stay in the hospital (multiplicative effect = 2.49; 95% confidence interval = 2.10, 2.94; 9.31 mean attributable days per infection, 95% confidence interval = 6.88, 12.13).
Measures for prevention of surgical site infection in elderly patients should target individuals who reside in health-care facilities prior to surgery. Future studies should be done to examine the effectiveness of such interventions in preventing infection and improving outcomes in elderly patients who undergo orthopaedic surgery.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Michael P Bolognesi, Jun 17, 2015
8 Followers
 · 
323 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aims to describe the factors associated with surgical site infection (SSI) in elderly patients who underwent hip hemiarthroplasty following a hip fracture, in a single institution over a nine-year period. All patients who underwent hip hemiarthroplasty between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2012 in our hospital were included in the present study. The detection of SSI was carried out by a trained, independent infection control nurse using the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria. Demographic and clinical data were collected retrospectively. Demographics and clinical factors were analysed for potential associations with SSI. Among the 1,320 patients who met the study inclusion criteria, a total 57 SSIs were documented, giving an infection rate of 4.3%. Patients who waited for more than one week for surgery had a statistically significantly higher risk of SSI (odds ratio 3.030, 95% confidence interval 1.075-8.545, p = 0.036). The presence of SSI was also significantly associated with increased length of hospital stay (p < 0.001). The two main microorganisms detected were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which accounted for 50.9% and 26.3% of the SSIs, respectively. We concluded that the number of days from admission to surgery is a main risk factor for the development of SSI. Steps should, therefore, be taken to prevent unnecessary delay of surgery in elderly patients requiring hip hemiarthroplasty.
    Singapore medical journal 10/2014; 55(10):535-8. · 0.63 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a calamitous complication with high morbidity and substantial cost. The reported incidence is low but it is probably underestimated due to the difficulty in diagnosis. PJI has challenged the orthopaedic community for several years and despite all the advances in this field, it is still a real concern with immense impact on patients, and the healthcare system. Eradication of infection can be very difficult. Therefore, prevention remains the ultimate goal. The medical community has executed many practices with the intention to prevent infection and treat it effectively when it encounters. Numerous factors can predispose patients to PJI. Identifying the host risk factors, patients’ health modification, proper wound care, and optimizing operative room environment remain some of the core fundamental steps that can help minimizing the overall incidence of infection. In this review we have summarized the effective prevention strategies along with the recommendations of a recent International Consensus Meeting on Surgical Site and Periprosthetic Joint Infection.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has moved into the first place as the cause of failure following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Recent studies have shown that PJI results in higher mortality in patients than many cancers. The economic burden of treating PJI is likely to exceed $1 billion this year in the US. Thus, it is paramount that all efforts are invested to prevent this dreaded complication after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). This article summarizes some of the most effective and proven strategies for prevention of PJI. It is hoped that the article will be of benefit to the readers of the journal. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    The Journal of arthroplasty 03/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.arth.2015.02.044 · 2.37 Impact Factor