No difference in bacterial contamination of hip capsule sutures and control sutures in hip arthroplasty surgery.
Bacterial contamination
Capsule Sutures
Total hip arthroplasty
Journal
Antimicrobial resistance and infection control
ISSN: 2047-2994
Titre abrégé: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101585411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 09 2023
14 09 2023
Historique:
received:
07
05
2023
accepted:
05
09
2023
medline:
18
9
2023
pubmed:
15
9
2023
entrez:
14
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Perioperative preventive measures are important to further reduce the rate of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). During THA surgery, joint capsule sutures are commonly placed to optimize exposure and reinsertion of the capsule. Bacterial contamination of these sutures during the procedure poses a potential risk for postoperative infection. In this exploratory study, we assessed the contamination rate of capsule sutures compared to the contamination of the remains of exchanged control sutures at the time of closure. In 100 consecutive patients undergoing primary THA capsule sutures were exchanged by sterile sutures at the time of capsule closure. Both the original sutures and the remainder of the newly placed (control) sutures were retrieved, collected and cultured for ten days. Types of bacterial growth and contamination rates of both sutures were assessed. Sutures from 98 patients were successfully collected and analyzed. Bacterial growth was observed in 7/98 (7.1%) of the capsule sutures versus 6/98 (6.1%) of the control sutures, with a difference of 1% [CI -6-8]. There was no clear pattern in differences in subtypes of bacteria between groups. This study showed that around 7% of capsule sutures used in primary THA were contaminated with bacteria and as such exchange by new sutures at the time of capsule closure could be an appealing PJI preventive measure. However, since similar contamination rates were encountered with mainly non-virulent bacteria for both suture groups, the PJI preventive effect of this measure appears to be minimal.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Perioperative preventive measures are important to further reduce the rate of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). During THA surgery, joint capsule sutures are commonly placed to optimize exposure and reinsertion of the capsule. Bacterial contamination of these sutures during the procedure poses a potential risk for postoperative infection. In this exploratory study, we assessed the contamination rate of capsule sutures compared to the contamination of the remains of exchanged control sutures at the time of closure.
METHODS
In 100 consecutive patients undergoing primary THA capsule sutures were exchanged by sterile sutures at the time of capsule closure. Both the original sutures and the remainder of the newly placed (control) sutures were retrieved, collected and cultured for ten days. Types of bacterial growth and contamination rates of both sutures were assessed.
RESULTS
Sutures from 98 patients were successfully collected and analyzed. Bacterial growth was observed in 7/98 (7.1%) of the capsule sutures versus 6/98 (6.1%) of the control sutures, with a difference of 1% [CI -6-8]. There was no clear pattern in differences in subtypes of bacteria between groups.
CONCLUSIONS
This study showed that around 7% of capsule sutures used in primary THA were contaminated with bacteria and as such exchange by new sutures at the time of capsule closure could be an appealing PJI preventive measure. However, since similar contamination rates were encountered with mainly non-virulent bacteria for both suture groups, the PJI preventive effect of this measure appears to be minimal.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37710282
doi: 10.1186/s13756-023-01305-0
pii: 10.1186/s13756-023-01305-0
pmc: PMC10503031
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
101Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Hip Int. 2022 Jul;32(4):426-430
pubmed: 33025837
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012 Jun;98(4):432-40
pubmed: 22578871
J Knee Surg. 2014 Aug;27(4):251-8
pubmed: 24792971
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2010 Oct;11(5):433-9
pubmed: 20673144
J Arthroplasty. 2021 May;36(5):1484-1489.e3
pubmed: 33422392
JAMA Surg. 2017 Aug 01;152(8):784-791
pubmed: 28467526
Arthroplast Today. 2018 Oct 29;5(1):96-99
pubmed: 31020031
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Jan;477(1):116-126
pubmed: 30794234
Bone Joint J. 2020 Oct;102-B(10):1341-1348
pubmed: 32993339
ANZ J Surg. 2019 Sep;89(9):1009-1015
pubmed: 30497094
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999 Sep;81(5):886-9
pubmed: 10530856
Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2018 May 22;20(7):15
pubmed: 29789958
Acta Orthop. 2011 Oct;82(5):567-76
pubmed: 21992086
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2023 Apr;32(4):744-750
pubmed: 36464206
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Apr;32(4):1272-1279
pubmed: 28065625
Bone Joint J. 2017 Apr;99-B(4 Supple B):3-10
pubmed: 28363888
Arthroscopy. 2018 Apr;34(4):1151-1155
pubmed: 29373294
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022 Jan;30(1):246-252
pubmed: 33566145
Arthroplast Today. 2021 Dec 15;13:69-75
pubmed: 34977309
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2002 Apr;23(4):183-9
pubmed: 12002232
J Hosp Infect. 1993 Jan;23(1):5-15
pubmed: 8095948
Acta Chir Scand. 1979;145(7):431-4
pubmed: 539325
Br J Surg. 1964 Mar;51:195-202
pubmed: 14129433
J Hosp Infect. 2019 Mar;101(3):354-360
pubmed: 29908253
Int Orthop. 2014 May;38(5):1077-81
pubmed: 24390010
Can J Surg. 2015 Apr;58(2):128-39
pubmed: 25799249
Ann Surg. 1981 Jul;194(1):35-41
pubmed: 7018429