No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
The hip fracture best practice tariff: Early surgery and the implications for MRSA screening and antibiotic prophylaxis
... 22 En el caso de los pacientes que requieran vancomicina, dado por alergia a antibióticos betalactámicos, en pacientes con colonización de S. aureus resistente a meticilina o en departamentos que experimentaron brotes de SARM, se deberá iniciar por lo menos 60 minutos previo a la incisión por el riesgo de reacciones anafilácticas. 23 ...
Aims
Infection after surgery increases treatment costs and is associated with increased mortality. Hip fracture patients have historically had high rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization and surgical site infection (SSI). This paper reports the impact of routine MRSA screening and the “cleanyourhands” campaign on rates of MRSA SSI and patient outcome.
Methods
A total of 13,503 patients who presented with a hip fracture over 17 years formed the study population. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine risk factors for MRSA and SSI. Autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) modelling adjusted for temporal trends in rates of MRSA. Kaplan-Meier estimators were generated to assess for changes in mortality.
Results
In all, 6,189 patients were identified before the introduction of screening and 7,314 in the post-screening cohort. MRSA infection fell from 69 cases to 15 in the post-screening cohort (p < 0.001). The ARIMA confirmed a significant reduction in MRSA SSI post-screening (p = 0.043) but no significant impact after hand hygiene alone (p = 0.121). Overall SSI fell (2.4% to 1.5%), however deep infection increased slightly (0.89% to 1.06%). ARIMA showed neither intervention affected overall SSI (“cleanyourhands” -0.172% (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39% to 0.21); p = 0.122, screening -0.113% per year, (95% CI -0.34 to 0.12); p = 0.373). One-year mortality after deep SSI was unchanged after screening (50% vs 45%; p = 0.415). Only warfarinization (OR 3.616 (95% CI 1.366 to 9.569); p = 0.010) and screening (OR 0.189 (95% CI 0.086 to 0.414); p < 0.001) were significant covariables for developing MRSA SSI.
Conclusion
While screening and decolonization may reduce MRSA-associated SSI, the benefit to patient outcome remains unclear. Overall deep SSI remains an unsolved problem that has seen little improvement over time. Preventing other hospital-associated infections should not be forgotten in the fight against MRSA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):170–177.
Antimicrobial prophylaxis remains the most powerful tool used to reduce infection rates in orthopaedics but the choice of antibiotic is complex. The aim of this study was to examine trends in antimicrobial prophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery involving the insertion of metalwork between 2005 and 2011.
Two questionnaires (one in 2008 and one in 2011) were sent to all National Health Service trusts in the UK using the Freedom of Information Act.
In total, 87% of trusts that perform orthopaedic surgery responded. The use of cefuroxime more than halved between 2005 and 2011 from 80% to 36% and 78% to 26% in elective surgery and trauma surgery respectively. Combination therapy with flucloxacillin and gentamicin rose from 1% to 32% in elective and 1% to 34% in trauma surgery. Other increasingly popular regimes include teicoplanin and gentamicin (1% to 10% in elective, 1% to 6% in trauma) and co-amoxiclav (3% to 8% in elective, 4% to 14% in trauma). The majority of changes occurred between 2008 and 2010. Over half (56%) of the trusts stated that Clostridium difficile was the main reason for changing regimes.
In 2008 a systematic review involving 11,343 participants failed to show a difference in surgical site infections when comparing different antimicrobial prophylaxis regimes in orthopaedic surgery. Concerns over C difficile and methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus have influenced antimicrobial regimes in both trauma and elective surgery. Teicoplanin would be an appropriate choice for antimicrobial prophylaxis in both trauma and elective units but this is not reflected in its current level of popularity.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.