Differential microbiological spectrum and resistance pattern in periprosthetic hip joint infections: a matched-cohort analysis comparing direct anterior versus lateral approach.
Direct anterior approach
Joint infection
Lateral approach
Microorganism
Total hip arthroplasty
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Jan 2022
19 Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
10
05
2021
accepted:
11
01
2022
entrez:
20
1
2022
pubmed:
21
1
2022
medline:
22
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In recent years, total hip arthroplasty via the direct anterior approach (DAA) has become more common. Little is known on the influence of the surgical approach on the microbiological spectrum and resistance pattern in periprosthetic hip joint infections. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the microbiological spectrum and resistance pattern in periprosthetic hip joint infections comparing the direct anterior versus lateral approach in a matched-cohort analysis at a single institution. Patients who underwent revision hip arthroplasty due to PJI following primary total hip arthroplasty with culture positive microbiology were analyzed. In all study patients, both the primary surgery and the revisions surgery were performed at the same institution. Only patients in whom primary surgery was performed via a direct anterior or lateral approach were included (n = 87). A matched cohort analysis was performed to compare the microbiological spectrum and resistance pattern in PJI following direct anterior (n = 36) versus lateral (n = 36) primary THA. We identified both a significantly different microbiological spectrum and resistance pattern in PJI comparing direct anterior versus lateral approach THA. Cutibacterium avidum was obtained more frequently in the anterior subgroup (22.2% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.028). In the subgroup of infections with Staphylococcus aureus (n = 12), methicillin resistance was detected in 3/5 cases in the direct anterior group versus 0/7 cases in the lateral group (p = 0.045). Overall, Staphylococcus epidermidis was the most common causative microorganism in both groups (direct anterior: 36.1%; lateral: 27.8%, p = 0.448). The present study indicates a potential influence of the localization of the skin incision in THA on the microbiological spectrum and resistance pattern in PJI. Cutibacterium avidum seemed to be a more common causative microorganism in PJI in patients who underwent direct anterior compared to lateral approach THA.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In recent years, total hip arthroplasty via the direct anterior approach (DAA) has become more common. Little is known on the influence of the surgical approach on the microbiological spectrum and resistance pattern in periprosthetic hip joint infections. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the microbiological spectrum and resistance pattern in periprosthetic hip joint infections comparing the direct anterior versus lateral approach in a matched-cohort analysis at a single institution.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients who underwent revision hip arthroplasty due to PJI following primary total hip arthroplasty with culture positive microbiology were analyzed. In all study patients, both the primary surgery and the revisions surgery were performed at the same institution. Only patients in whom primary surgery was performed via a direct anterior or lateral approach were included (n = 87). A matched cohort analysis was performed to compare the microbiological spectrum and resistance pattern in PJI following direct anterior (n = 36) versus lateral (n = 36) primary THA.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We identified both a significantly different microbiological spectrum and resistance pattern in PJI comparing direct anterior versus lateral approach THA. Cutibacterium avidum was obtained more frequently in the anterior subgroup (22.2% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.028). In the subgroup of infections with Staphylococcus aureus (n = 12), methicillin resistance was detected in 3/5 cases in the direct anterior group versus 0/7 cases in the lateral group (p = 0.045). Overall, Staphylococcus epidermidis was the most common causative microorganism in both groups (direct anterior: 36.1%; lateral: 27.8%, p = 0.448).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The present study indicates a potential influence of the localization of the skin incision in THA on the microbiological spectrum and resistance pattern in PJI. Cutibacterium avidum seemed to be a more common causative microorganism in PJI in patients who underwent direct anterior compared to lateral approach THA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35045839
doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05037-x
pii: 10.1186/s12891-022-05037-x
pmc: PMC8772206
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
72Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Emerg Infect Dis. 2013 Apr;19(4):623-9
pubmed: 23631854
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010 May;16(5):425-31
pubmed: 19689469
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Nov 14;17(1):471
pubmed: 27842584
PLoS One. 2019 Oct 17;14(10):e0224106
pubmed: 31622440
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1950 May;32-B(2):166-73
pubmed: 15422013
Int Orthop. 2016 Jul;40(7):1367-73
pubmed: 26183140
Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Jan 6;66(1):54-63
pubmed: 29020266
Hip Pelvis. 2018 Sep;30(3):138-146
pubmed: 30202747
Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Nov 28;67(12):1878-1882
pubmed: 29746626
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2018 May 30;31(3):
pubmed: 29848774
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2021 Feb 1;10(1):27
pubmed: 33522957
J Arthroplasty. 2018 May;33(5):1309-1314.e2
pubmed: 29551303
Bone Joint J. 2019 Jun;101-B(6_Supple_B):2-8
pubmed: 31146560
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1978 Jan;35(1):62-6
pubmed: 623473
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):780-5
pubmed: 17403800
EFORT Open Rev. 2019 Jul 29;4(7):482-494
pubmed: 31423332
Hip Int. 2019 Nov;29(6):597-602
pubmed: 30698022
J Arthroplasty. 2009 Sep;24(6 Suppl):105-9
pubmed: 19493644
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 27;8(6):e67167
pubmed: 23826224
Bone Joint J. 2020 Jul;102-B(7_Supple_B):52-56
pubmed: 32600208
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019 Feb;93(2):125-130
pubmed: 30266398
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Sep;29(9):1839-41
pubmed: 24890998
J Arthroplasty. 2021 Jun;36(6):2038-2043
pubmed: 33648842
J Arthroplasty. 2021 Jun;36(6):2158-2164
pubmed: 33608181