Next Article in Journal
Short- and Long-Term Evaluation of Renal Function after Radical Cystectomy and Cutaneous Ureterostomy in High-Risk Patients
Next Article in Special Issue
Is There a Role for Spacer Exchange in Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection?
Previous Article in Journal
Clinical Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes of Pathologically Confirmed Aspergillus Nodules
Previous Article in Special Issue
Orthopaedic Surgery Elicits a Systemic Anti-Inflammatory Signature
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 9
Issue 7
10.3390/jcm9072190
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Prevention of Prosthetic Joint Infection: From Traditional Approaches towards Quality Improvement and Data Mining

by
Jiri Gallo
* and
Eva Nieslanikova
Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc, University Hospital Olomouc, I. P. Pavlova 6, 77900 Olomouc, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9(7), 2190; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9072190
Submission received: 28 May 2020 / Revised: 8 July 2020 / Accepted: 9 July 2020 / Published: 11 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Prosthetic Joint Infection Care)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A projected increased use of total joint arthroplasties will naturally result in a related increase in the number of prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Suppression of the local peri-implant immune response counters efforts to eradicate bacteria, allowing the formation of biofilms and compromising preventive measures taken in the operating room. For these reasons, the prevention of PJI should focus concurrently on the following targets: (i) identifying at-risk patients; (ii) reducing “bacterial load” perioperatively; (iii) creating an antibacterial/antibiofilm environment at the site of surgery; and (iv) stimulating the local immune response. Despite considerable recent progress made in experimental and clinical research, a large discrepancy persists between proposed and clinically implemented preventative strategies. The ultimate anti-infective strategy lies in an optimal combination of all preventative approaches into a single “clinical pack”, applied rigorously in all settings involving prosthetic joint implantation. In addition, “anti-infective” implants might be a choice in patients who have an increased risk for PJI. However, further progress in the prevention of PJI is not imaginable without a close commitment to using quality improvement tools in combination with continual data mining, reflecting the efficacy of the preventative strategy in a particular clinical setting.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a disastrous complication of modern orthopedic surgery, frequently leading to prolonged morbidity and even to increased mortality [1,2,3]. Moreover, therapy for PJI is associated with enormous costs [4,5,6]. Although international efforts to minimize the risk of these infections are ongoing, PJIs continue to develop in alarming numbers. Current estimates of the rate of PJI range between 0.5% and 2.4% of primary hip and knee arthroplasties [7], and PJI can complicate up to 20% of revision arthroplasties [8,9]. Some authors have suggested that these numbers for primary total joint arthroplasty are both underestimated and increasing [10]. Gram-positive pathogens are thought to cause most PJIs, with staphylococci topping the list [11]. Indeed, the prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and S. epidermidis (MRSE) is increasing [12,13,14]. The caveat is that the microbiology associated with these events can be dynamic and difficult to capture. Results can depend on the location of the prosthetic joint (e.g., knee, hip, shoulder) and perhaps also on the type of PJI and related comorbidities [13,14,15]. Furthermore, the methods used to identify causative agents can vary, and the geographical location can be a source of microbial variability [16]. PJIs can be early (within 3 months), delayed (3–12 months), and late (>12 months). Early and delayed PJIs are associated with direct contamination at the time of surgery, whereas late/hematogenous PJIs are associated with blood delivery of infective agents.
The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the current knowledge in the field of PJI prevention. A particular emphasis is placed on methods that might integrate individual measurements.

1.1. Key Steps Towards PJI

PJI results from a complex interplay of numerous factors [17] that lead to an inability of periprosthetic immune cells to protect implant surfaces and periprosthetic tissues from bacterial colonization. For this reason, Gristina et al. proposed the concept of a “race for the surface” in which the host and bacterial cells compete in determining the ultimate fate of the implant [18]. This proposal has stimulated technological and biomaterial progress in ensuring clean operating rooms, appropriate skin preparation, antibiotic prophylaxis, and development of an “anti-infective” implant [19,20]. However, the idea is quite basic in comparison with current knowledge about the complexity of host–bacteria interactions [21]. Other factors that are, to some extent, out of our hands may play a role in the induction of dysbiosis or loss of a tolerance around an implant [13,22].
The most destabilizing factor is the ability of bacteria to adhere to and survive on virtually all natural and synthetic surfaces. Immediately after placement, a conditional protein film can develop, deriving from a reservoir of receptors for bacterial adhesive ligands that mediate the adhesion of free-floating bacteria to the surface of the biomaterial [23]. Several distinct classes of surface proteins have been identified as participating in firm adhesion of S. aureus microcolonies to a biomaterial and to each other [24]. The environmental and surface characteristics of a biomaterial, including surface roughness, hydrophobicity, and electrostatic charge, play conditional roles [25,26].
Once firmly attached to the surface of an implant, the microorganisms initiate biofilm formation, which is the creation of a “bacterial tissue” [23]. The formation of a biofilm is under the control of multiple genes, including those responsible for the secretion of protective slime and installation of quorum-sensing that enables communication inside the biofilm [23]. Mature biofilm of mono/polymicrobial origin makes bacteria extremely resistant to both the host immune system and antibiotic diffusion [27]. The transition between reversible and irreversible phases of biofilm formation, coupled with phenotypic change, is the last window of opportunity for clinically reasonable preventative measures (Figure 1).
In addition to biofilm-based PJI, the intracellular occurrence of invasive bacteria can also be part of the PJI presentation, contributing to the clinical variance observed in PJI. Intracellular bacteria including Staphylococci spp. can live in cytoplasm (cytoplasmic vacuoles) [28], and some pathogens can even invade the intranuclear environment [29]. Despite this intracellular umbrella, these bacteria cannot escape from the cells of innate immunity and can, for instance, be identified through a specific sensing mechanism of inflammasomes [30,31]. Moreover, bacteria have been detected living in the net of the bone canaliculi [32], and other places may serve as niches for bacteria inside the host. Details on host–intracellular pathogen interactions have been given elsewhere [33,34].

1.2. Why Has PJI Not Been Eradicated Despite Modern Preventative Measures?

The complete eradication of infections associated with indwelling implants is an unrealized dream of generations of orthopedic surgeons and scientists. The explanation for the inability to resolve this problem is complex. First, PJI may be a manifestation of host–bacteria interactions that differ from those traditionally assumed to result from intraoperative colonization of implant surfaces (conceptual limits). The current strategy is based on defending against bacterial invasion. However, bacteria may initially be nonpathogenic relative to the periprosthetic environment until some stimuli (miscommunication) shifts the host–bacteria interaction and triggers PJI development. Second, there may be a failure to eliminate a significant bacterial load during a surgery (organizational limits). Irregularities associated with routine processes in the operating room or perioperatively could underlie or facilitate PJI. We can never exclude the chance associated with day-to-day life (unintended systemic and individual mistakes). Third, some studies may overestimate the impact of a preventative intervention (scientific limits, biases) [35]. We have neglected the rule of replication in the pursuit of priority results, eliding the scientific reality that only a repeatedly verified result becomes a valuable result [36]. The key question along these lines is the extent to which we can rely on published data driving the preventative guidelines implemented in clinical practice. In most clinical studies, the implementation of an intervention is associated with any observed reduction in PJI. If this association were real in each of these studies, the combined absolute risk reduction for a set of particular interventions performed almost simultaneously (perioperatively) would be expected to shift PJI risk almost to zero. However, clinical data do not bear out this prediction [37]. The explanation for this may be that these studies are not appropriately designed to demonstrate the effect of these interventions, in part because of poor control of many non-inveterventional but clinically relevant factors.

2. Preoperative Strategies

The success of bacteria depends not only on the size of the bacterial load (all related to good surgical practice) but also on the ability of a host to eradicate them. For this reason, assessment of a patient’s individual risk for PJI is crucial even if the true potential for modifying some risk parameters in individual cases may be limited.

2.1. At-Risk Patients

A patient’s medical history can be a source of relevant information for calculating preoperative risk for the postoperative development of PJI. The presence of comorbidities and medications related to decreased effectiveness of the innate immune system is important for such analysis (Table 1). However, no sound mathematical link has been established with PJI development in most conditions. In addition, we do not know all the parameters for the optimization of a risk factor or the contribution of such optimization to the absolute risk reduction of PJI.
Some studies have shown that carriers of MRSA and MRSE could be at increased risk for PJI [56]. This finding has triggered a wide range of research activities examining the efficacy of preoperative decolonization [57]. Infections at other sites (organs) distant from the joint of interest also can contribute to the development of PJI and should be eradicated before total joint arthroplasty (TJA). In some institutions, clinicians target dental, urinary tract, gynecological, and soft-tissue infections, including of the skin.

2.2. Preventative Strategies for At-Risk Patients

The most effective preventative measure would be to restrict candidacy for TJA in patients who are at high risk for PJI, but this option is not ethically appropriate. If consensus can be reached on the clinical value of assessing this kind of risk, several preventative measurements can be possible (Table 2). In these patients, all the available weapons should be applied simultaneously as a “preventative package or block” with the hope that synergy among them will decrease the risk much more than any single strategy [58]. In addition, such patients should be cared for by multi-disciplinary teams in “centralized” facilities that specialize in these issues. The Perioperative Orthopedic Surgical Home model offers an example of such an effort [59].

3. Perioperative Strategies

A host skin and people working in the operating room environment are a source of bacteria contaminating surgical wounds, tools, and implants (Figure 2). Many studies have demonstrated the significance of operating room quality, including controlling traffic and airflow for the number of surgical site infections (SSIs) [92,93,94,95]. Therefore, measurements contributing to a decrease in the bacterial load during a surgery are extremely worthwhile. Attempts have been made to formulate evidence-based standards for good clinical and logistic practice in orthopedic operating rooms [96,97,98,99]. Educational programs aimed at educating orthopedic surgeons (and all other operation room staff) in perioperative strategies of PJI prevention are ongoing.

3.1. Preparation of Operative Field

Skin preparation of the operative field is an essential component of PJI prevention, substantially decreasing the bacterial load of skin origin. Hair removal at the incision site has been analyzed in relation to the risk for SSI/PJI. Current recommendations are to use electric clippers or special depilation creams before TJA surgery. Generally, however, the evidence for routine hair removal is not conclusive [100]. Surprisingly, at least one study showed that hair removal increases the risk for SSI after TKA (total knee arthroplasty) [101]. The probability of PJI was at least three times higher with hair removal compared to surgeries without it (univariate odds ratio [OR] 2.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24–7.23; multivariate OR 3.09; 95% CI, 1.27–7.50). In France, some surgeons do not recommend hair removal before TJA [100]. Questions also remain unanswered regarding when hair removal should be optimally performed (e.g., the day before the surgery or the day of the surgery).
Preoperatively, antiseptic agents used repeatedly for several days or the night before and/or the morning of surgery have been tested [71,102]. Skin decontamination using a chlorhexidine shower or cloths (other antiseptic agents) could contribute to a decreased PJI risk [103]. The optimal timing or duration of antiseptic agent application is unclear, especially at the shoulder and in case of Cutibacterium acnes [104].
The purpose of pre-incisional skin preparation is to reduce radically (within several minutes after application) the number of bacteria at the site of the operating field prior to incision and control for recolonization during surgery [105]. A wide spectrum of paint solutions, including both alcohol- and non–alcohol-based agents, have been certified for this purpose [106], but evidence for a particular product is limited. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis found superior benefit for chlorhexidine compared to povidone-iodine in clean surgery in terms of prevention of postoperative SSIs (risk ratio 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67–0.98) [107]. Concerns persist, however, regarding the effective concentration of chlorhexidine, given a report stating that even with 4% chlorhexidine, skin bacteria could still be cultivated from healthy volunteers [108]. Perhaps along these lines, the results of a recent large randomized controlled trial showed no difference in rates of superficial wound complications between alcoholic chlorhexidine (0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% ethanol) and alcoholic iodine (1% in 70% ethanol) skin antisepsis [109]. In fact, iodine-alcohol showed greater efficacy in that study in terms of the PJI risk (OR 3.55; 95% CI, 1.20–10.44).
Several methods are available for sealing the surgical field before an incision. One option is to lock skin flora pathogens in place using cyanoacrylate liquid (e.g., Integuseal) before making the incision. However, the evidence in favor of this product in relation to PJI is insufficient to date. In non-TJA studies, SSI rates have not differed significantly between use and non-use of microbial sealants (risk ratio 0.53; 95% CI, 0.24–1.18) [110]. The evidence also is not clearly in favor of iodophor-impregnated adhesive drapes when compared to no adhesive drape in prevention of SSI [111] and PJI [73]. The results of a randomized clinical trial showed a reduction in SSIs when a surgical site preparation solution was reapplied after draping and before the application of iodophor-impregnated incision draping [112].

3.2. Operating Room—Technical Parameters, Traffic

The operating room contributes to PJI with the airborne bacterial load. Standards for architectural, technical, and personnel parameters of operating rooms used for TJA surgery have been developed and implemented. These standards describe minimum requirements, including: (i) design (e.g., sizes, places for anesthesiology, operating table, tables for tools, implants); (ii) equipment (e.g., imaging tools, laminar flow, sterilizing facility); (iii) management (“how the operating room area functions as a whole to maintain a sterile environment” including detailed checklists for all regular activities/processes defining personnel/patient/material flows); and (iv) regular assessments/audits of such rooms, guaranteeing together that the environment for surgery is safe for the patient. A large registry-based study found an effect for high-volume, unidirectional, vertical flow ventilation compared with other devices [113]. In contrast, a large study in an Asian population showed no effect on PJI rate after TKA when directly comparing surgeries performed in a laminar airflow operating room to those performed in a room without laminar airflow [114]. In addition, the true cost-effectiveness of ultra-clean air ventilation or laminar airflow systems is not clear [115,116].

3.3. Team, Personnel

The key prerequisite for a continual sterile environment is the professional behavior of all operating room personnel during surgery [117]. National [118] or international organizations [119] strictly define the checklists and protocols for personnel/patient/material flows in operating rooms, all of which must be learned, implemented, controlled, and regularly audited. In one study, a positive correlation was found between microbial air contamination and the number of people in the operating room and number of door openings [120]. Global surgery guidelines for the prevention of SSI have been suggested [121], leading to an expectation among surgeons of 100% adherence to pre-established protocols (standards) throughout a surgery, although this bar is a difficult one for all personnel to meet [122,123,124].
The most cost-effective measure in the operating room is hand antisepsis, with a substantial body of evidence showing that modern hand hygiene can reduce the risk for SSIs. Several protocols for hand washing have been developed, tested, and implemented in operating theater practice [125,126,127]. Handwashing for surgery is a complex procedure that is not globally standardized, with a variability among clinical practices at least in terms of the specific washing regime and antiseptic use. Two methods are commonly used for surgical hand washing: i) an alcohol-based hand rub using either a liquid solution, certified gel, or foam-type product; or b) a water-based hand scrub with certified chlorhexidine or povidone-iodine. Manufacturers’ instructions must always be respected. To date, no conclusive evidence highlights the superiority of one method over another for reducing SSI [128].
Surgical team members (including nurses) should have appropriate surgical gowns to decrease skin/hair/body contamination of the operating environment [118]. Some studies have examined the role of body exhaust suits in comparison to traditional surgical gowns, caps, and masks, and the outcomes did not favor modern-type body exhaust suits over standard surgical clothing [129,130]. A sterile surgical helmet system also is not absolutely reliable in terms of preventing contamination [131,132]. In fact, sterile surgical gloves and gowns can be contaminated during longer procedures [133,134,135], and double gloving is recommended in TJA surgery to eliminate contamination of the operating site [136]. Many surgeons change gloves several times per surgery, depending on the operating time or phases of surgery.

3.4. Systemic/Local Antibiotics

To date, the use of systemic antibiotics represents one of the most effective approaches to reducing PJI (generally, SSI). Antibiotics are recommended as part of a complex preventative strategy [137]. In no case is the treatment intended as a substitution for other preventative measures.
The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that prophylactic antibiotics should be administered 1 h prior to surgical incision and repeated in the recommended dose if the surgical time extends beyond 2 or 3 h or in cases of substantial blood loss [7]. The European practice is slightly different [138]. Current guidelines for TJA clinical practice most often recommend cefazolin and cefuroxime for patients undergoing TJA, and vancomycin or clindamycin in those with suspected/proven hypersensitivity to the first-line antibiotics [139]. A universal protocol for antibiotic prophylaxis rather than one tailored for an individual patient should be used in clinical practice [140]. In revision cases, patients should not receive antimicrobial substances for at least 2 weeks before culture sampling to minimize the chance of false-negative culture results [141]. However, at least one small study has shown that preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis does not interfere with the accuracy of tissue culturing [142].
Although most guidelines have recommended the 24-h regime of intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis [139], some alternative protocols have been tested. A single antibiotic dose has proved comparable to 24-h and longer regimes in terms of the postoperative rate of PJI [143]. In addition, oral antibiotics have been examined in the prevention of PJI, especially in association with an extended period of use and for high-risk patients [78,79,144,145]. Recently, a dual antibiotic strategy has been proposed in response to increased rates of cephalosporin-resistant bacteria. Initial studies have yielded promising outcomes for either a combination of cephazolin with teicoplanin [146] or cephazolin with vancomycin [77]. However, it is too early to widely implement this strategy.
Local antibiotics (antimicrobials) have been proposed and tested for the creation of a more effective local antimicrobial environment in the early postoperative period [147,148,149]. However, there are some concerns related to inducing antibiotic resistance [150,151] and to the effect size in terms of decreased PJI rates after total hip arthroplasty (THA)/TKA [87,152]. At least one study has demonstrated the efficacy and safety of direct intra-wound application of 1 g of vancomycin (plus systemic antibiotics) compared with a control group receiving only systemic antibiotics [153]. There is also support from an experimental study for such a practice [154]. However, some concerns persist about effectiveness [155] and safety because this strategy might increase wound healing complications [156].
Several studies have demonstrated that collagen [157], hydrogel [158,159], or mineral [160] carriers of antibiotics and non-antibiotic agents (e.g., chitosan, antimicrobial peptides) are quite effective in vitro and even in vivo. However, the evidence for using such alternative antimicrobial carriers in preventing PJI remains to be demonstrated in clinical studies.

3.5. Intraoperative Care for TJA Patients

Meticulous intravascular catheter disinfection contributes to an overall reduction in SSIs [161]. Several studies have demonstrated the importance of regional anesthesia for the success of TJA at least in terms of complication spectrum/rate [162,163]. A number of factors affect the overall performance of organs and tissues and their ability to clear bacteria during a surgery, even though a clear association between the type of anesthesia and rate of PJI has not been reported. Of relevant factors, the most important is organ/tissue perfusion and oxygenation. Perioperative hypothermia induces poor tissue perfusion, and several strategies have been proposed to avoid it, including preoperative or intraoperative warming [164,165]. A benefit of perioperative hyperoxia in non-critically ill adults has not been demonstrated [166].

3.6. Surgeon Performance

The risk for PJI increases with increased operative time, offering more time for bacterial colonization of the operating wound and implant surface [167]. Therefore, an experienced and skilled surgeon is highly necessary to reduce the rate of SSI, including PJI, in combination with other preventative measures. When big data from U.S. clinical practices were analyzed, patients of TKA surgeons who had a shorter operation time had a lower risk for PJI (risk ratio 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43–0.64) than surgeons who typically had a longer procedure duration [168]. Other studies have shown an increased risk for SSI in THA in association with increased operative time [169,170].
An experienced surgeon works quickly and precisely, using tissue-preserving surgery, meticulous clotting of the blood, and other techniques that leave periarticular tissues vital without excessive hematomas. One intervention that every surgeon fully controls is washes prior to wound closure (irrigation). These washes can mechanically and biologically reduce the bacterial load in the wound and available surfaces of an implant [171]. Dilute Betadine wash used at the end of surgery and/or before original implants are placed into the bone bed could reduce the rate of acute postoperative PJI [85,172,173]. At least one study found non-inferiority for chlorhexidine gluconate wash in comparison to dilute Betadine wash [84]. A special suture technique and/or materials also have been suggested to contribute to a reduction in postoperative PJIs [174,175]. On the other hand, PJI rates do not vary when staples are used instead of sutures for skin closure [176]. Overall, it is very difficult to distinguish facts and opinions in the individual surgeon practices. The fear of medicolegal litigation is so considerable that the concept of “less is more” is difficult for many clinical practices to embrace.

3.7. Anti-Infective Implant

Many studies have examined a wide range of antibacterial principles and surface finishing/modifications [177,178]. A recent systematic review reported a tendency to a lower PJI rate with silver-coated hip megaprostheses primarily used in tumor indications [179]. These implants have also been used after PJI in patients with extensive bone loss [180]. However, the overall evidence in favor of using silver-coated implants is still insufficient [181]. In addition, one small study reported clinical follow-up (mean 5.6 years) for iodine-coated titanium THAs and TKAs in the treatment of postoperative infections in immunocompromised patients [182].
The newest technologies revolutionize the construction of this kind of implant, combining bacteria killing effectors with physical/chemical sensors for the identification of bacteria/bacterial byproducts on the surface and/or in the vicinity of an implant [183]. When approved and available, these implants could be used in immunocompromised patients with a highly increased risk for PJI, including hematogenous disease. Because the number of these patients is expected to increase, there could be a massive cost savings to the health care system. However, some non-technological obstacles persist. Among these are the unintended coalition of manufacturers, regulatory agencies, and perhaps health care payors. The respective behavior of each of these stakeholders contributes to the overall difficulty, precluding the implementation of smart anti-infective devices in clinical practice. This issue is described in detail elsewhere [184].

4. Postoperative Strategies

Postoperative strategies are intended to eliminate risk for PJI associated with bacterial colonization of implant surface/periprosthetic tissues postoperatively (after an implant is encapsulated by vital host tissues). This infective pathway is poorly understood and difficult to prevent in comparison with PJIs associated with intraoperative colonization.

4.1. Wound Care

Early wound leakage is a risk factor for PJI [185]. For this reason, care of surgical wounds is an essential part of the early postoperative preventative strategy. Several predictive tools are available for indicating the probability of wound disturbances, including examination of serum albumin, lymphocytes, transferrin, and/or neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio [186]. However, no one of these tests is reliable enough to differentiate risk among patients.
A number of wound dressing products are currently available, with the manufacturers of each one emphasizing its advantages over the others. Some of them have been intended for anti-infective or antibacterial use, employing novel technologies and antibacterial substances [187]. They can be passive, active, and primarily anti-infective (interactive). However, no evidence is available to date favoring any one dressing over another for significantly affecting PJI risk. A compression bandage was found to have no benefit after TKAs [188]; however, negative-pressure wound therapy following THA and TKA has been found to reduce short-term wound healing complications [189]. This approach can be applied especially in at-risk patients [190]. Unfortunately, all of these studies may be biased by study protocols, by the number and type of patients included, and by manufacturers needing to sell their products. The makers also substantially affect practice when they organize education for physicians, physician assistants, and/or nurses in the care for wounds.

4.2. Measures Against Hematogenous and Directly Spreading PJI

After a wound is healed, hematogenous contamination and direct spreading (“per continuitatem”) of an artificial joint remain the only pathways for new access by pathogenic bacteria [191,192]. To prevent these PJIs, we should theoretically target all potentially dangerous sources of bacteria, but no one knows which these are. Another assumption is that the capsule around an artificial joint must lose its protective function.
Traditionally, the sources of clinically important bloodstream contamination are dental, urinary, gynecological, renal, or bowel surgical infections/procedures. Recent analyses argue against routine prophylaxis before dental procedures [193,194]. No or insufficient evidence is available in relation to other interventions potentially leading to substantial bacteremia (abdominal, gynecological, urological procedures). The current recommendations on antibiotic prophylaxis after TJA are listed in Table 3. Scientifically, the task is relatively simple: to prove a substantial decrease in PJI after administration of antibiotics in these cases compared to those who did not receive this prophylaxis. Such studies must involve modern informatic technologies, connecting data from registries of TJA with other digital sources of information for hundreds of thousands of patients.

5. A Case for Quality Improvement into Practice

Through many years of practice, a number of strategies have been tested, all aimed at reducing the risk for PJI development, applied pre-, peri-, or postoperatively. Even though their educational impact has been enormous based on the number of their secondary products (e.g., papers, lectures, guidelines), the overall risk for PJI ranges from 0.5% to higher depending on the study location, design, and/or a particular group of patients who were treated by TJA. The risk-standardized PJI event ratio can be calculated to adjust for different volumes and other factors influencing the inappropriate comparison between locations [204]. Taken together, we have a relatively solid body of knowledge about “anti-infective” interventions; however, we perhaps fail in implementing these strategies in clinical practice. This situation is nothing new in clinical medicine.
Quality improvement (QI) is defined as a systematic continuous approach that ultimately provides better outcomes for patients via a set of methods, their appropriate communication, re-assessment of their effect, and their correction if required [205]. Health care professionals frequently feel resistance to QI workers and limit collaboration with them. The reasons for this resistance are many and mixed and beyond the scope of this review. The most important question is whether the risk for PJI could be decreased to zero in all departments through a tighter collaboration with QI departments. In other words, can a multi-factorial event like PJI be eliminated using QI approaches? This question should be tested because improvement in healthcare is estimated to be 20% technical and 80% human [205]. If this estimation is true, then there is a large window for improvement.
Healthcare organizations use a clinical audit to track and confirm the organization’s adherence to current written standards. The primary intent for service evaluation is to assess the performance of current patient care [205]. However, both of these regular activities may co-exist with an increased rate of PJI. A constraint on this possibility is that the health care service/insurance companies often have a strict predefined threshold for penalizing hospitals with PJI numbers that exceed this value. In fact, one of the critical functions of national registries is to identify the “problematic departments” (not only implants). Red flags about a service performance enable local authorities to initiate the QI process to change clinical practice. Details related to a particular QI approach are out of the scope of this review, and we recommend some of the recent relevant literature [206,207,208].

6. Who Is the Best Provider?

Theoretically, the best provider can implement a complex body of preventative measurements, verify their effects continuously, and upgrade the system according to new evidence as needed (Figure 3). In practice, the winners are the providers reporting the lowest PJI rate after adjustment for the number of at-risk patients. Based on these data, patients should not be admitted to hospitals that cannot adopt the highest standards of prevention that guarantee the lowest risk for PJI. Let us assume that accurate data are available for a department or a surgeon. The reality is that every provider has some rate of PJI regardless of the quality of preventative measures applied. We can speculate about the reasons underlying each PJI. Does PJI occur only in cases when the otherwise functioning systems fail accidentally? Or is it that the system prevents infection in low- or middle-risk patients and cannot cover only those who are susceptible to infection?
Several researchers have sought to summarize the evidence from studies with large heterogeneity in terms of patients, methodology, confounding factors, or outcomes [209,210,211]. Adding a new intervention to the relatively robust multi-component and multi-level preventative system gives information only on the performance of the whole system after adding a new intervention, not on the pure performance of an individual measurement. Therefore, it is difficult to evaluate the individual contribution to the performance of a system. In addition, the performance of the whole system may be so effective that it leads to an overestimation of the individual intervention or even adaptation to mistakes. As a result, some workplaces can maintain a very low rate of PJI, whereas others show a higher rate of PJI using the same approach to prevention.
The secret to success probably consists of a well-balanced combination of preventative interventions that will result in a reduction in the number of PJIs in the population and the probability of PJI in a patient [212]. Whether finding it will require trial and error or be facilitated by more modern tools remains to be seen. Still, it is possible to identify the fault in advance when processing sufficiently large samples of patients. If joint replacement registries uncover a higher number of PJIs in some workplaces, it can be possible to infer that there is a problem in operation rooms or in early postoperative care based on a particular patient portfolio.

7. Contribution of Machine Learning to Prevention of PJI

Machine learning (ML) references a group of methods for training software algorithms to learn from and act on new data to continuously improve health care performance [213]. Its utility for further progress in surgery is clear and unquestioned [214]. Here, we would like to emphasize the potential of ML to reduce the number of PJIs by mining new knowledge from the huge amount of data collected for individual patients (Figure 4) in every country. To date, no single study has demonstrated the contribution of a particular ML method for preventing PJI. This gap is at least in part a result of the strict regulatory approach to artificial intelligence technologies. When intended to prevent a disease (complication), ML-based software is defined as a medical device under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with regulatory steps which must be fulfilled before implementation into a clinical practice. Most ML-based products could be developed via the 510(k) pathway or through the de novo pathway [213]. However, concerns have arisen, for example, about a change in product outputs after the product is distributed. The primary reason for these concerns is the potential for “after learning” self-corrections that could lead the device to provide useless or even harmful recommendations compared to regulatory approval. Therefore, a post-approval regulatory strategy is required to guarantee the continual safety of these products. At the time of writing, it is important to note that these technologies are a reality and that orthopedic surgeons in collaborations with bioinformaticians and engineers can apply them to all PJI topics, including prevention. Big data and informatics are central to such efforts and can deliver feedback to surgeons and their teams so that they can learn from their experiences and refine their practices. Doing so will require international effort because enormous numbers of TJA patients would have to be included in such a project.

8. A Step towards Precision Prevention of PJI?

A very low microbial load is a critical requirement for each TJA surgery because without microbes (bacteria or fungi), PJI cannot develop. To achieve this aim, multiple measurements should be applied simultaneously in all patients (routine standards for everyone). This approach, however, has generated the relatively wide range of PJIs reported in the literature, and there is a suspicion that the numbers of PJI are underestimated. Certainly, not every surgery is performed under the same conditions. Variability in the quality standards or adherence to these standards underlies some PJIs, but these factors make up only part of the truth. Another part of the reality is that PJI is perhaps unpreventable in some patients regardless of the environment in which the surgery is performed. For this reason, current standards for TJI may not be able to protect all patients who are at risk for PJI.
Precision prevention of PJI describes delivery of the precise preventative content to a particular patient at an optimal time [215]. In other words, it is about tailoring prevention to a biological as well as non-biological risk profile of the individual patient. However, the understanding of how patients differ in terms of their susceptibility to PJI before TJA remains insufficient despite the number of studies published in the last 10 years. These studies have identified several risk factors that can be largely categorized as modifiable and non-modifiable [211,216,217,218]. Of course, it is tempting to change all avoidable factors before a surgery to diminish the overall PJI risk. However, an optimal model for precise stratification of patients is not available in clinical practice.
Theoretically, the preventative interventions should be matched to a particular patient according to the individual preoperatively calculated risk for PJI [219,220]. For at-risk patients, depending on their estimated risk for PJI, an extra-preventative package could include, e.g., surgery in a special “anti-infective” room, prolonged antibiotic prevention, placement of a local antibacterial carrier around the implant, and implantation of an anti-infective implant. However, no study has demonstrated the success of precision prevention in the field of TJA. Of note, any decrease in PJI demonstrated in well-conducted studies should be non-trivial to justify the overall increased costs associated with such an intervention.

9. Conclusions

The prevention of PJI is an absolutely essential part of TJA clinical practice because all patients have the right not to be harmed during TJA. When complex preventative measures are fully applied and adhered to in clinical practice, PJI should be preventable in almost all cases. Thus, the secret of clinical success (i.e., negligibly low infection rate) lies in an optimal combination of critical preoperative and perioperative measurements. Strategies relying on the creation of a bacteria-free environment around an implant during the whole perioperative period are a cornerstone of a successful TJA clinical practice. Sufficient evidence supports systemic antibiotic prophylaxis and some other traditional preventative measures. Here, we postulate that all future strategies will focus on continuous data and quality management. The optimal preventative configuration has to be continuously designed/redesigned according to the actual rate of PJI and its appropriate analysis. In this sense, prevention will always be a systematic work in progress. The outcomes of such PJI-oriented QI projects have to be monitored and analyzed. If a particular preventative configuration shows excellent efficacy, then it should be implemented, trained on, and controlled widely across hospitals globally. Patients, payors, and regulatory authorities should insist on adherence to these up-to-date preventative standards.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.G.; methodology, J.G.; formal analysis, J.G., E.N.; investigation, J.G., E.N.; resources, J.G.; data curation, E.N., J.G.; writing—original draft preparation, J.G., E.N.; writing—review and editing, J.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the AZV Ministry of Health, Czech Republic, VES 17-29680A, and from the resources of the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic—Development of a Research Organization (University Hospital Olomouc, 00098892).

Acknowledgments

Figure 4 and the graphical abstract were prepared with help from Petr Gajdos, Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VSB-Technical University of Ostrava, Czech Republic.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Fischbacher, A.; Borens, O. Prosthetic-joint infections: Mortality over the last 10 years. J. Bone Jt. Infect. 2019, 4, 198–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Natsuhara, K.M.; Shelton, T.J.; Meehan, J.P.; Lum, Z.C. Mortality during total hip periprosthetic joint infection. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, S337–S342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Gundtoft, P.H.; Pedersen, A.B.; Varnum, C.; Overgaard, S. Increased mortality after prosthetic joint infection in primary tha. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2017, 475, 2623–2631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Puhto, T.; Puhto, A.P.; Vielma, M.; Syrjala, H. Infection triples the cost of a primary joint arthroplasty. Infect. Dis. 2019, 51, 348–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Musil, D.; Snorek, M.; Gallo, J.; Jahoda, D.; Stehlik, J. Economic analysis of the costs of hospital stay of patients with infection as a complication of total replacements-part 2: Total hip arthroplasty. Acta Chir. Orthop. Traumatol. Cechoslov. 2019, 86, 241–248. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
  6. Musil, D.; Snorek, M.; Gallo, J.; Jahoda, D.; Stehlik, J. Economic analysis of the costs of hospital stay of patients with infection as a complication of total replacements-part 1: Total knee arthroplasty. Acta Chir. Orthop. Traumatol. Cechoslov. 2019, 86, 173–180. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
  7. Marculescu, C.E.; Mabry, T.; Berbari, E.F. Prevention of surgical site infections in joint replacement surgery. Surg. Infect. 2016, 17, 152–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, F.D.; Wang, Y.P.; Chen, C.F.; Chen, H.P. The incidence rate, trend and microbiological aetiology of prosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty: A 13 years’ experience from a tertiary medical center in taiwan. J. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. 2018, 51, 717–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Boddapati, V.; Fu, M.C.; Mayman, D.J.; Su, E.P.; Sculco, P.K.; McLawhorn, A.S. Revision total knee arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection is associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality relative to noninfectious revisions. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 521–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dale, H.; Hallan, G.; Hallan, G.; Espehaug, B.; Havelin, L.I.; Engesaeter, L.B. Increasing risk of revision due to deep infection after hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2009, 80, 639–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Matthews, J.; Bamal, R.; McLean, A.; Bindra, R. Bacteriological profile of community-acquired musculoskeletal infections: A study from queensland. ANZ J. Surg. 2018, 88, 1061–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Lourtet-Hascoet, J.; Felice, M.P.; Bicart-See, A.; Bouige, A.; Giordano, G.; Bonnet, E. Species and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of coagulase-negative staphylococci in periprosthetic joint infections. Epidemiol. Infect. 2018, 146, 1771–1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Triffault-Fillit, C.; Ferry, T.; Laurent, F.; Pradat, P.; Dupieux, C.; Conrad, A.; Becker, A.; Lustig, S.; Fessy, M.H.; Chidiac, C.; et al. Microbiologic epidemiology depending on time to occurrence of prosthetic joint infection: A prospective cohort study. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2019, 25, 353–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Rosteius, T.; Jansen, O.; Fehmer, T.; Baecker, H.; Citak, M.; Schildhauer, T.A.; Gessmann, J. Evaluating the microbial pattern of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip and knee. J. Med Microbiol. 2018, 67, 1608–1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Tsai, Y.; Chang, C.H.; Lin, Y.C.; Lee, S.H.; Hsieh, P.H.; Chang, Y. Different microbiological profiles between hip and knee prosthetic joint infections. J. Orthop. Surg. 2019, 27, 2309499019847768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Armit, D.; Vickers, M.; Parr, A.; Van Rosendal, S.; Trott, N.; Gunasena, R.; Parkinson, B. Humidity a potential risk factor for prosthetic joint infection in a tropical australian hospital. ANZ J. Surg. 2018, 88, 1298–1301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Davidson, D.J.; Spratt, D.; Liddle, A.D. Implant materials and prosthetic joint infection: The battle with the biofilm. EFORT Open Rev. 2019, 4, 633–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Gristina, A.G.; Naylor, P.; Myrvik, Q. Infections from biomaterials and implants: A race for the surface. Med Prog. Technol. 1988, 14, 205–224. [Google Scholar]
  19. Moriarty, T.F.; Harris, L.G.; Mooney, R.A.; Wenke, J.C.; Riool, M.; Zaat, S.A.J.; Moter, A.; Schaer, T.P.; Khanna, N.; Kuehl, R.; et al. Recommendations for design and conduct of preclinical in vivo studies of orthopedic device-related infection. J. Orthop. Res. 2019, 37, 271–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Raphel, J.; Holodniy, M.; Goodman, S.B.; Heilshorn, S.C. Multifunctional coatings to simultaneously promote osseointegration and prevent infection of orthopaedic implants. Biomaterials 2016, 84, 301–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Kimkes, T.E.P.; Heinemann, M. How bacteria recognise and respond to surface contact. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2019, 44, 106–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Van Dyke, T.E.; Bartold, P.M.; Reynolds, E.C. The nexus between periodontal inflammation and dysbiosis. Front. Immunol. 2020, 11, 511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Arciola, C.R.; Campoccia, D.; Montanaro, L. Implant infections: Adhesion, biofilm formation and immune evasion. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2018, 16, 397–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Herman-Bausier, P.; Labate, C.; Towell, A.M.; Derclaye, S.; Geoghegan, J.A.; Dufrene, Y.F. Staphylococcus aureus clumping factor a is a force-sensitive molecular switch that activates bacterial adhesion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 5564–5569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Berne, C.; Ellison, C.K.; Ducret, A.; Brun, Y.V. Bacterial adhesion at the single-cell level. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2018, 16, 616–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Carniello, V.; Peterson, B.W.; van der Mei, H.C.; Busscher, H.J. Physico-chemistry from initial bacterial adhesion to surface-programmed biofilm growth. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2018, 261, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Orazi, G.; O’Toole, G.A. “It takes a village”: Mechanisms underlying antimicrobial recalcitrance of polymicrobial biofilms. J. Bacteriol. 2019, 202, e00530-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Josse, J.; Laurent, F.; Diot, A. Staphylococcal adhesion and host cell invasion: Fibronectin-binding and other mechanisms. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 2433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Schulz, F.; Horn, M. Intranuclear bacteria: Inside the cellular control center of eukaryotes. Trends Cell Biol. 2015, 25, 339–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Broz, P. Recognition of intracellular bacteria by inflammasomes. Microbiol. Spectr. 2019, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Weiss, G.; Schaible, U.E. Macrophage defense mechanisms against intracellular bacteria. Immunol. Rev. 2015, 264, 182–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. de Mesy Bentley, K.L.; Trombetta, R.; Nishitani, K.; Bello-Irizarry, S.N.; Ninomiya, M.; Zhang, L.; Chung, H.L.; McGrath, J.L.; Daiss, J.L.; Awad, H.A.; et al. Evidence of staphylococcus aureus deformation, proliferation, and migration in canaliculi of live cortical bone in murine models of osteomyelitis. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2017, 32, 985–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Escoll, P.; Buchrieser, C. Metabolic reprogramming: An innate cellular defence mechanism against intracellular bacteria? Curr. Opin. Immunol. 2019, 60, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Toyofuku, M.; Nomura, N.; Eberl, L. Types and origins of bacterial membrane vesicles. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2019, 17, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Chapman, C.D.; Benedict, C.; Schioth, H.B. Experimenter gender and replicability in science. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, e1701427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Ioannidis, J.P.A. Why replication has more scientific value than original discovery. Behav. Brain Sci. 2018, 41, e137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kurtz, S.M.; Lau, E.C.; Son, M.S.; Chang, E.T.; Zimmerli, W.; Parvizi, J. Are we winning or losing the battle with periprosthetic joint infection: Trends in periprosthetic joint infection and mortality risk for the medicare population. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 3238–3245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Berbari, E.F.; Hanssen, A.D.; Duffy, M.C.; Steckelberg, J.M.; Ilstrup, D.M.; Harmsen, W.S.; Osmon, D.R. Risk factors for prosthetic joint infection: Case-control study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 1998, 27, 1247–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kunutsor, S.K.; Whitehouse, M.R.; Blom, A.W.; Beswick, A.D.; Team, I. Patient-related risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection after total joint arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0150866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Deegan, B.F.; Richard, R.D.; Bowen, T.R.; Perkins, R.M.; Graham, J.H.; Foltzer, M.A. Impact of chronic kidney disease stage on lower-extremity arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2014, 37, e613–e618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Miric, A.; Inacio, M.C.; Namba, R.S. Can total knee arthroplasty be safely performed in patients with chronic renal disease? Acta Orthop. 2014, 85, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Chen, J.H.; Kuo, F.C.; Wang, J.W. Total knee arthroplasty in patients with dialysis: Early complications and mortality. Biomed. J. 2014, 37, 84–89. [Google Scholar]
  43. Li, W.C.; Shih, C.H.; Ueng, S.W.; Shih, H.N.; Lee, M.S.; Hsieh, P.H. Uncemented total hip arthroplasty in chronic hemodialysis patients. Acta Orthop. 2010, 81, 178–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Lieu, D.; Harris, I.A.; Naylor, J.M.; Mittal, R. Review article: Total hip replacement in haemodialysis or renal transplant patients. J. Orthop. Surg. 2014, 22, 393–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Onochie, E.; Kayani, B.; Dawson-Bowling, S.; Millington, S.; Achan, P.; Hanna, S. Total hip arthroplasty in patients with chronic liver disease: A systematic review. SICOT J. 2019, 5, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Lee, D.K.; Kim, H.J.; Cho, I.Y.; Lee, D.H. Infection and revision rates following primary total knee arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis versus osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2017, 25, 3800–3807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. George, M.D.; Baker, J.F.; Winthrop, K.; Alemao, E.; Chen, L.; Connolly, S.; Hsu, J.Y.; Simon, T.A.; Wu, Q.; Xie, F.; et al. Risk of biologics and glucocorticoids in patients with rheumatoid arthritis undergoing arthroplasty: A cohort study. Ann. Intern. Med. 2019, 170, 825–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ma, Z.; Guo, F.; Qi, J.; Xiang, W.; Zhang, J. Meta-analysis shows that obesity may be a significant risk factor for prosthetic joint infections. Int. Orthop. 2016, 40, 659–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tsantes, A.G.; Papadopoulos, D.V.; Lytras, T.; Tsantes, A.E.; Mavrogenis, A.F.; Korompilias, A.V.; Gelalis, I.D.; Tsantes, C.G.; Bonovas, S. Association of malnutrition with periprosthetic joint and surgical site infections after total joint arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Hosp. Infect. 2019, 103, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bedard, N.A.; DeMik, D.E.; Owens, J.M.; Glass, N.A.; DeBerg, J.; Callaghan, J.J. Tobacco use and risk of wound complications and periprosthetic joint infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of primary total joint arthroplasty procedures. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, 385–396.E4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kolz, J.M.; Rainer, W.G.; Wyles, C.C.; Houdek, M.T.; Perry, K.I.; Lewallen, D.G. Lymphedema: A significant risk factor for infection and implant failure after total knee arthroplasty. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. O’Neill, S.C.; Queally, J.M.; Hickey, A.; Mulhall, K.J. Outcome of total hip and knee arthroplasty in hiv-infected patients: A systematic review. Orthop. Rev. 2019, 11, 8020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Somerson, J.S.; Boylan, M.R.; Hug, K.T.; Naziri, Q.; Paulino, C.B.; Huang, J.I. Risk factors associated with periprosthetic joint infection after total elbow arthroplasty. Shoulder Elb. 2019, 11, 116–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Althoff, A.; Cancienne, J.M.; Cooper, M.T.; Werner, B.C. Patient-related risk factors for periprosthetic ankle joint infection: An analysis of 6977 total ankle arthroplasties. J. Foot Ankle Surg. 2018, 57, 269–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Chalmers, B.P.; Weston, J.T.; Osmon, D.R.; Hanssen, A.D.; Berry, D.J.; Abdel, M.P. Prior hip or knee prosthetic joint infection in another joint increases risk three-fold of prosthetic joint infection after primary total knee arthroplasty: A matched control study. Bone Jt. J. 2019, 101-B, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Malcolm, T.L.; Robinson le, D.; Klika, A.K.; Ramanathan, D.; Higuera, C.A.; Murray, T.G. Predictors of staphylococcus aureus colonization and results after decolonization. Interdiscip. Perspect. Infect. Dis. 2016, 2016, 4367156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Zhu, X.; Sun, X.; Zeng, Y.; Feng, W.; Li, J.; Zeng, J.; Zeng, Y. Can nasal staphylococcus aureus screening and decolonization prior to elective total joint arthroplasty reduce surgical site and prosthesis-related infections? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2020, 15, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ma, N.; Cameron, A.; Tivey, D.; Grae, N.; Roberts, S.; Morris, A. Systematic review of a patient care bundle in reducing staphylococcal infections in cardiac and orthopaedic surgery. ANZ J. Surg. 2017, 87, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kim, K.Y.; Anoushiravani, A.A.; Chen, K.K.; Li, R.; Bosco, J.A.; Slover, J.D.; Iorio, R. Perioperative orthopedic surgical home: Optimizing total joint arthroplasty candidates and preventing readmission. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, S91–S96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Maradit Kremers, H.; Lewallen, L.W.; Mabry, T.M.; Berry, D.J.; Berbari, E.F.; Osmon, D.R. Diabetes mellitus, hyperglycemia, hemoglobin a1c and the risk of prosthetic joint infections in total hip and knee arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2015, 30, 439–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Shohat, N.; Tarabichi, M.; Tan, T.L.; Goswami, K.; Kheir, M.; Malkani, A.L.; Shah, R.P.; Schwarzkopf, R.; Parvizi, J. 2019 john insall award: Fructosamine is a better glycaemic marker compared with glycated haemoglobin (hba1c) in predicting adverse outcomes following total knee arthroplasty: A prospective multicentre study. Bone Jt. J. 2019, 101-B, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Colunga-Lozano, L.E.; Gonzalez Torres, F.J.; Delgado-Figueroa, N.; Gonzalez-Padilla, D.A.; Hernandez, A.V.; Roman, Y.; Cuello-Garcia, C.A. Sliding scale insulin for non-critically ill hospitalised adults with diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 11, CD011296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Uppal, C.; Blanshard, A.; Ahluwalia, R.; Dhatariya, K. Achieving a preoperative target hba1c of <69 mmol/mol in elective vascular and orthopedic surgery: A retrospective single center observational study. Diabetes Ther. 2019, 10, 1959–1967. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Zhong, J.; Wang, B.; Chen, Y.; Li, H.; Lin, N.; Xu, X.; Lu, H. Relationship between body mass index and the risk of periprosthetic joint infection after primary total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty. Ann. Transl. Med. 2020, 8, 464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Shearer, J.; Agius, L.; Burke, N.; Rahardja, R.; Young, S.W. Bmi is a better predictor of periprosthetic joint infection risk than local measures of adipose tissue after tka. J. Arthroplast. 2020, 35, S313–S318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kwasny, M.J.; Edelstein, A.I.; Manning, D.W. Statistical methods dictate the estimated impact of body mass index on major and minor complications after total joint arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2018, 476, 2418–2429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Baratz, M.D.; Hallmark, R.; Odum, S.M.; Springer, B.D. Twenty percent of patients may remain colonized with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus despite a decolonization protocol in patients undergoing elective total joint arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2015, 473, 2283–2290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Tandon, T.; Tadros, B.J.; Akehurst, H.; Avasthi, A.; Hill, R.; Rao, M. Risk of surgical site infection in elective hip and knee replacements after confirmed eradication of mrsa in chronic carriers. J. Arthroplast. 2017, 32, 3711–3717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yeganeh, M.H.; Kheir, M.M.; Shahi, A.; Parvizi, J. Rheumatoid arthritis, disease modifying agents, and periprosthetic joint infection: What does a joint surgeon need to know? J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 1258–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Eiselt, D. Presurgical skin preparation with a novel 2% chlorhexidine gluconate cloth reduces rates of surgical site infection in orthopaedic surgical patients. Orthop. Nurs. 2009, 28, 141–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kapadia, B.H.; Elmallah, R.K.; Mont, M.A. A randomized, clinical trial of preadmission chlorhexidine skin preparation for lower extremity total joint arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2016, 31, 2856–2861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Cai, Y.; Xu, K.; Hou, W.; Yang, Z.; Xu, P. Preoperative chlorhexidine reduces the incidence of surgical site infections in total knee and hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Surg. 2017, 39, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Kuo, F.C.; Tan, T.L.; Wang, J.W.; Wang, C.J.; Ko, J.Y.; Lee, M.S. Use of antimicrobial-impregnated incise drapes to prevent periprosthetic joint infection in primary total joint arthroplasty: A retrospective analysis of 9774 cases. J. Arthroplast. 2020, 35, 1686–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Hesselvig, A.B.; Arpi, M.; Madsen, F.; Bjarnsholt, T.; Odgaard, A.; Group, I.S. Does an antimicrobial incision drape prevent intraoperative contamination? A randomized controlled trial of 1187 patients. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2020, 478, 1007–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Rezapoor, M.; Tan, T.L.; Maltenfort, M.G.; Parvizi, J. Incise draping reduces the rate of contamination of the surgical site during hip surgery: A prospective, randomized trial. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 1891–1895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Villa, J.M.; Pannu, T.S.; Riesgo, A.M.; Patel, P.D.; Mont, M.A.; Higuera-Rueda, C.A. Dual antibiotic prophylaxis in total knee arthroplasty: Where do we stand? J. Knee Surg. 2020, 33, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Burger, J.R.; Hansen, B.J.; Leary, E.V.; Aggarwal, A.; Keeney, J.A. Dual-agent antibiotic prophylaxis using a single preoperative vancomycin dose effectively reduces prosthetic joint infection rates with minimal renal toxicity risk. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, S213–S218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. DeFrancesco, C.J.; Fu, M.C.; Kahlenberg, C.A.; Miller, A.O.; Bostrom, M.P. Extended antibiotic prophylaxis may be linked to lower peri-prosthetic joint infection rates in high-risk patients: An evidence-based review. HSS J. 2019, 15, 297–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Inabathula, A.; Dilley, J.E.; Ziemba-Davis, M.; Warth, L.C.; Azzam, K.A.; Ireland, P.H.; Meneghini, R.M. Extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis in high-risk patients substantially reduces primary total hip and knee arthroplasty 90-day infection rate. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2018, 100, 2103–2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chen, A.F.; Fleischman, A.; Austin, M.S. Use of intrawound antibiotics in orthopaedic surgery. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2018, 26, e371–e378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wang, Q.; Goswami, K.; Shohat, N.; Aalirezaie, A.; Manrique, J.; Parvizi, J. Longer operative time results in a higher rate of subsequent periprosthetic joint infection in patients undergoing primary joint arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, 947–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Cheng, H.; Chen, B.P.; Soleas, I.M.; Ferko, N.C.; Cameron, C.G.; Hinoul, P. Prolonged operative duration increases risk of surgical site infections: A systematic review. Surg. Infect. 2017, 18, 722–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Parvizi, J.; Barnes, S.; Shohat, N.; Edmiston, C.E., Jr. Environment of care: Is it time to reassess microbial contamination of the operating room air as a risk factor for surgical site infection in total joint arthroplasty? Am. J. Infect. Control 2017, 45, 1267–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Driesman, A.; Shen, M.; Feng, J.E.; Waren, D.; Slover, J.; Bosco, J.; Schwarzkopf, R. Perioperative chlorhexidine gluconate wash during joint arthroplasty has equivalent periprosthetic joint infection rates in comparison to betadine wash. J. Arthroplast. 2020, 35, 845–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Slullitel, P.A.; Dobransky, J.S.; Bali, K.; Poitras, S.; Bhullar, R.S.; Ottawa Arthroplasty, G.; Kim, P.R. Is there a role for preclosure dilute betadine irrigation in the prevention of postoperative infection following total joint arthroplasty? J. Arthroplast. 2020, 35, 1374–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Romano, C.L.; Malizos, K.; Capuano, N.; Mezzoprete, R.; D’Arienzo, M.; Van Der Straeten, C.; Scarponi, S.; Drago, L. Does an antibiotic-loaded hydrogel coating reduce early post-surgical infection after joint arthroplasty? J. Bone Jt. Infect. 2016, 1, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Sebastian, S.; Liu, Y.; Christensen, R.; Raina, D.B.; Tagil, M.; Lidgren, L. Antibiotic containing bone cement in prevention of hip and knee prosthetic joint infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Orthop. Translat. 2020, 23, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. van Vugt, T.A.G.; Walraven, J.M.B.; Geurts, J.A.P.; Arts, J.J.C. Antibiotic-loaded collagen sponges in clinical treatment of chronic osteomyelitis: A systematic review. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2018, 100, 2153–2161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Parry, M.C.; Laitinen, M.K.; Albergo, J.I.; Gaston, C.L.; Stevenson, J.D.; Grimer, R.J.; Jeys, L.M. Silver-coated (agluna(r)) tumour prostheses can be a protective factor against infection in high risk failure patients. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 45, 704–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Gustin, M.P.; Ohannessian, R.; Giard, M.; Caillat-Vallet, E.; Savey, A.; Vanhems, P.; CCLIN Sud-Est study group. Use of surveillance data to calculate the sample size and the statistical power of randomized clinical trials testing staphylococcus aureus vaccine efficacy in orthopedic surgery. Vaccine 2017, 35, 6934–6937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Fowler, V.G.; Allen, K.B.; Moreira, E.D.; Moustafa, M.; Isgro, F.; Boucher, H.W.; Corey, G.R.; Carmeli, Y.; Betts, R.; Hartzel, J.S.; et al. Effect of an investigational vaccine for preventing staphylococcus aureus infections after cardiothoracic surgery: A randomized trial. JAMA 2013, 309, 1368–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Rezapoor, M.; Alvand, A.; Jacek, E.; Paziuk, T.; Maltenfort, M.G.; Parvizi, J. Operating room traffic increases aerosolized particles and compromises the air quality: A simulated study. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 851–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Hamilton, W.G.; Balkam, C.B.; Purcell, R.L.; Parks, N.L.; Holdsworth, J.E. Operating room traffic in total joint arthroplasty: Identifying patterns and training the team to keep the door shut. Am. J. Infect. Control 2018, 46, 633–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Baldini, A.; Blevins, K.; Del Gaizo, D.; Enke, O.; Goswami, K.; Griffin, W.; Indelli, P.F.; Jennison, T.; Kenanidis, E.; Manner, P.; et al. General assembly, prevention, operating room-personnel: Proceedings of international consensus on orthopedic infections. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, S97–S104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Curtis, G.L.; Faour, M.; Jawad, M.; Klika, A.K.; Barsoum, W.K.; Higuera, C.A. Reduction of particles in the operating room using ultraviolet air disinfection and recirculation units. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, S196–S200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Illingworth, K.D.; Mihalko, W.M.; Parvizi, J.; Sculco, T.; McArthur, B.; el Bitar, Y.; Saleh, K.J. How to minimize infection and thereby maximize patient outcomes in total joint arthroplasty: A multicenter approach: Aaos exhibit selection. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2013, 95, e50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Andersson, A.E.; Bergh, I.; Karlsson, J.; Eriksson, B.I.; Nilsson, K. Traffic flow in the operating room: An explorative and descriptive study on air quality during orthopedic trauma implant surgery. Am. J. Infect. Control 2012, 40, 750–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Clyburn, T.A.; Evans, R.P.; Moucha, C.S.; Prokuski, L. Surgical site infection prevention: The operating room environment. Instr. Course Lect. 2011, 60, 565–574. [Google Scholar]
  99. Hester, R.A.; Nelson, C.L.; Harrison, S. Control of contamination of the operative team in total joint arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 1992, 7, 267–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Jolivet, S.; Lucet, J.C. Surgical field and skin preparation. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2019, 105, S1–S6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Hijas-Gomez, A.I.; Lucas, W.C.; Checa-Garcia, A.; Martinez-Martin, J.; Fahandezh-Saddi, H.; Gil-de-Miguel, A.; Duran-Poveda, M.; Rodriguez-Caravaca, G. Surgical site infection incidence and risk factors in knee arthroplasty: A 9-year prospective cohort study at a university teaching hospital in spain. Am. J. Infect. Control 2018, 46, 1335–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Cooper, A.L.; Brown, J.A.; Salathiel, J.; Gollner, S. An intervention to improve patient understanding and use of preoperative chlorhexidine washes. Infect Dis. Health 2019, 24, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. George, J.; Klika, A.K.; Higuera, C.A. Use of chlorhexidine preparations in total joint arthroplasty. J. Bone Jt. Infect. 2017, 2, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  104. Matsen, F.A.; Whitson, A.J.; Hsu, J.E. While home chlorhexidine washes prior to shoulder surgery lower skin loads of most bacteria, they are not effective against cutibacterium (propionibacterium). Int. Orthop. 2020, 44, 531–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Privitera, G.P.; Costa, A.L.; Brusaferro, S.; Chirletti, P.; Crosasso, P.; Massimetti, G.; Nespoli, A.; Petrosillo, N.; Pittiruti, M.; Scoppettuolo, G.; et al. Skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine versus iodine for the prevention of surgical site infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Infect. Control 2017, 45, 180–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Letzelter, J.; Hill, J.B.; Hacquebord, J. An overview of skin antiseptics used in orthopaedic surgery procedures. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2019, 27, 599–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Chen, S.; Chen, J.W.; Guo, B.; Xu, C.C. Preoperative antisepsis with chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine for the prevention of surgical site infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J. Surg. 2020, 44, 1412–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Cooke, C.L.; Greene, R.S.; van Eck, C.F.; Uquilas, C.; Limpisvasti, O. Bioelectric silver-zinc dressing equally effective to chlorhexidine in reducing skin bacterial load in healthy volunteers. Arthroscopy 2018, 34, 2886–2891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Peel, T.N.; Dowsey, M.M.; Buising, K.L.; Cheng, A.C.; Choong, P.F.M. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus iodine-alcohol for surgical site skin preparation in an elective arthroplasty (acaisa) study: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2019, 25, 1239–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Wood, C.; Phillips, C. Cyanoacrylate microbial sealants for skin preparation prior to surgery. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 18, CD008062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Webster, J.; Alghamdi, A. Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 17, CD006353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  112. Morrison, T.N.; Chen, A.F.; Taneja, M.; Kucukdurmaz, F.; Rothman, R.H.; Parvizi, J. Single vs repeat surgical skin preparations for reducing surgical site infection after total joint arthroplasty: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. J. Arthroplast. 2016, 31, 1289–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Langvatn, H.; Schrama, J.C.; Cao, G.; Hallan, G.; Furnes, O.; Lingaas, E.; Walenkamp, G.; Engesaeter, L.B.; Dale, H. Operating room ventilation and the risk of revision due to infection after total hip arthroplasty: Assessment of validated data in the norwegian arthroplasty register. J. Hosp. Infect. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Teo, B.J.X.; Woo, Y.L.; Phua, J.K.S.; Chong, H.C.; Yeo, W.; Tan, A.H.C. Laminar flow does not affect risk of prosthetic joint infection after primary total knee replacement in asian patients. J. Hosp. Infect. 2020, 104, 305–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Bischoff, P.; Kubilay, N.Z.; Allegranzi, B.; Egger, M.; Gastmeier, P. Effect of laminar airflow ventilation on surgical site infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2017, 17, 553–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. McHugh, S.M.; Hill, A.D.; Humphreys, H. Laminar airflow and the prevention of surgical site infection. More harm than good? Surgeon 2015, 13, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Knobben, B.A.; van Horn, J.R.; van der Mei, H.C.; Busscher, H.J. Evaluation of measures to decrease intra-operative bacterial contamination in orthopaedic implant surgery. J. Hosp. Infect. 2006, 62, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Ban, K.A.; Minei, J.P.; Laronga, C.; Harbrecht, B.G.; Jensen, E.H.; Fry, D.E.; Itani, K.M.; Dellinger, E.P.; Ko, C.Y.; Duane, T.M. American college of surgeons and surgical infection society: Surgical site infection guidelines, 2016 update. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2017, 224, 59–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Allegranzi, B.; Zayed, B.; Bischoff, P.; Kubilay, N.Z.; de Jonge, S.; de Vries, F.; Gomes, S.M.; Gans, S.; Wallert, E.D.; Wu, X.; et al. New who recommendations on intraoperative and postoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: An evidence-based global perspective. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2016, 16, e288–e303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Agodi, A.; Auxilia, F.; Barchitta, M.; Cristina, M.L.; D’Alessandro, D.; Mura, I.; Nobile, M.; Pasquarella, C.; Italian Study Group of Hospital Hygiene. Operating theatre ventilation systems and microbial air contamination in total joint replacement surgery: Results of the gisio-ischia study. J. Hosp. Infect. 2015, 90, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. National Institute for Health Research Global Research Health Unit on Global Surgery. Delphi prioritization and development of global surgery guidelines for the prevention of surgical-site infection. Br. J. Surg. 2020, 107, 970–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Mackain-Bremner, A.A.; Owens, K.; Wylde, V.; Bannister, G.C.; Blom, A.W. Adherence to recommendations designed to decrease intra-operative wound contamination. Ann. R Coll. Surg. Engl. 2008, 90, 412–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  123. Lo Giudice, D.; Trimarchi, G.; La Fauci, V.; Squeri, R.; Calimeri, S. Hospital infection control and behaviour of operating room staff. Cent. Eur. J. Public Health 2019, 27, 292–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Zucco, R.; Lavano, F.; Nobile, C.G.A.; Papadopoli, R.; Bianco, A. Adherence to evidence-based recommendations for surgical site infection prevention: Results among italian surgical ward nurses. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0222825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Ho, Y.H.; Wang, Y.C.; Loh, E.W.; Tam, K.W. Antiseptic efficacies of waterless hand rub, chlorhexidine scrub, and povidone-iodine scrub in surgical settings: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Hosp. Infect. 2019, 101, 370–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Tanner, J.; Dumville, J.C.; Norman, G.; Fortnam, M. Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 22, CD004288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Fry, D.E. Operating room hand preparation: To scrub or to rub? Surg Infect. (Larchmt) 2019, 20, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Croke, L. Recommended practices for surgical hand antisepsis. AORN J. 2019, 109, P8–P10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Young, S.W.; Zhu, M.; Shirley, O.C.; Wu, Q.; Spangehl, M.J. Do ‘surgical helmet systems’ or ‘body exhaust suits’ affect contamination and deep infection rates in arthroplasty? A systematic review. J. Arthroplast. 2016, 31, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Ling, F.; Halabi, S.; Jones, C. Comparison of air exhausts for surgical body suits (space suits) and the potential for periprosthetic joint infection. J. Hosp. Infect. 2018, 99, 279–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Moores, T.S.; Khan, S.A.; Chatterton, B.D.; Harvey, G.; Lewthwaite, S.C. A microbiological assessment of sterile surgical helmet systems using particle counts and culture plates: Recommendations for safe use whilst scrubbing. J. Hosp. Infect. 2019, 101, 354–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Vermeiren, A.; Verheyden, M.; Verheyden, F. Do double-fan surgical helmet systems result in less gown-particle contamination than single-fan designs? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2020, 478, 1359–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Klaber, I.; Ruiz, P.; Schweitzer, D.; Lira, M.J.; Botello, E.; Wozniak, A. Contamination rate of the surgical gowns during total hip arthroplasty. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2019, 139, 1015–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Fraser, J.F.; Young, S.W.; Valentine, K.A.; Probst, N.E.; Spangehl, M.J. The gown-glove interface is a source of contamination: A comparative study. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2015, 473, 2291–2297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  135. Hosseini, P.; Mundis, G.M., Jr.; Eastlack, R.; Nourian, A.; Pawelek, J.; Nguyen, S.; Akbarnia, B.A. Do longer surgical procedures result in greater contamination of surgeons’ hands? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2016, 474, 1707–1713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Beldame, J.; Lagrave, B.; Lievain, L.; Lefebvre, B.; Frebourg, N.; Dujardin, F. Surgical glove bacterial contamination and perforation during total hip arthroplasty implantation: When gloves should be changed. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2012, 98, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  137. Aboltins, C.A.; Berdal, J.E.; Casas, F.; Corona, P.S.; Cuellar, D.; Ferrari, M.C.; Hendershot, E.; Huang, W.; Kuo, F.C.; Malkani, A.; et al. Hip and knee section, prevention, antimicrobials (systemic): Proceedings of international consensus on orthopedic infections. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, S279–S288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Stefansdottir, A.; Robertsson, O.; Annette, W.D.; Kiernan, S.; Gustafson, P.; Lidgren, L. Inadequate timing of prophylactic antibiotics in orthopedic surgery. We can do better. Acta Orthop. 2009, 80, 633–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Siddiqi, A.; Forte, S.A.; Docter, S.; Bryant, D.; Sheth, N.P.; Chen, A.F. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in total joint arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2019, 101, 828–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Tan, T.L.; Gomez, M.M.; Kheir, M.M.; Maltenfort, M.G.; Chen, A.F. Should preoperative antibiotics be tailored according to patient’s comorbidities and susceptibility to organisms? J. Arthroplast. 2017, 32, 1089–1094.E3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Al-Mayahi, M.; Cian, A.; Lipsky, B.A.; Suva, D.; Muller, C.; Landelle, C.; Miozzari, H.H.; Uckay, I. Administration of antibiotic agents before intraoperative sampling in orthopedic infections alters culture results. J. Infect. 2015, 71, 518–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  142. Bedencic, K.; Kavcic, M.; Faganeli, N.; Mihalic, R.; Mavcic, B.; Dolenc, J.; Bajc, Z.; Trebse, R. Does preoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis influence the diagnostic potential of periprosthetic tissues in hip or knee infections? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2016, 474, 258–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  143. Tan, T.L.; Shohat, N.; Rondon, A.J.; Foltz, C.; Goswami, K.; Ryan, S.P.; Seyler, T.M.; Parvizi, J. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in total joint arthroplasty: A single dose is as effective as multiple doses. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2019, 101, 429–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Hong, C.S.; Black, C.S.; Ryan, S.P.; Seyler, T.M. Extended oral antibiotics and infection prophylaxis after a primary or revision total knee arthroplasty. J. Knee Surg. 2020, 33, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Honkanen, M.; Jamsen, E.; Karppelin, M.; Huttunen, R.; Syrjanen, J. The effect of preoperative oral antibiotic use on the risk of periprosthetic joint infection after primary knee or hip replacement: A retrospective study with a 1-year follow-up. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2019, 25, 1021–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  146. Barbero-Allende, J.M.; Garcia-Sanchez, M.; Montero-Ruiz, E.; Valles-Purroy, A.; Plasencia-Arriba, M.A.; Sanz-Moreno, J. Dual prophylaxis with teicoplanin and cefazolin in the prevention of prosthetic joint infection. Enferm. Infecc. Microbiol. Clin. 2019, 37, 588–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Huiras, P.; Logan, J.K.; Papadopoulos, S.; Whitney, D. Local antimicrobial administration for prophylaxis of surgical site infections. Pharmacotherapy 2012, 32, 1006–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Anagnostakos, K.; Meyer, C. Antibiotic elution from hip and knee acrylic bone cement spacers: A systematic review. Biomed. Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 4657874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  149. Zhang, J.; Zhang, X.Y.; Jiang, F.L.; Wu, Y.P.; Yang, B.B.; Liu, Z.Y.; Liu, D. Antibiotic-impregnated bone cement for preventing infection in patients receiving primary total hip and knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. Medicine 2019, 98, e18068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Volejnikova, A.; Melichercik, P.; Nesuta, O.; Vankova, E.; Bednarova, L.; Rybacek, J.; Cerovsky, V. Antimicrobial peptides prevent bacterial biofilm formation on the surface of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement. J. Med. Microbiol. 2019, 68, 961–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Pontes, M.H.; Groisman, E.A. A physiological basis for nonheritable antibiotic resistance. mBio 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Sultan, A.A.; Samuel, L.T.; Umpierrez, E.; Swiergosz, A.; Rabin, J.; Mahmood, B.; Mont, M.A. Routine use of commercial antibiotic-loaded bone cement in primary total joint arthroplasty: A critical analysis of the current evidence. Ann. Transl. Med. 2019, 7, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Otte, J.E.; Politi, J.R.; Chambers, B.; Smith, C.A. Intrawound vancomycin powder reduces early prosthetic joint infections in revision hip and knee arthroplasty. Surg. Technol. Int. 2017, 30, 284–289. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  154. Sweet, F.A.; Forsthoefel, C.W.; Sweet, A.R.; Dahlberg, R.K. Local versus systemic antibiotics for surgical infection prophylaxis in a rat model. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2018, 100, e120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Heckmann, N.D.; Mayfield, C.K.; Culvern, C.N.; Oakes, D.A.; Lieberman, J.R.; Della Valle, C.J. Systematic review and meta-analysis of intrawound vancomycin in total hip and total knee arthroplasty: A call for a prospective randomized trial. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, 1815–1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Hanada, M.; Nishikino, S.; Hotta, K.; Furuhashi, H.; Hoshino, H.; Matsuyama, Y. Intrawound vancomycin powder increases post-operative wound complications and does not decrease periprosthetic joint infection in primary total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2019, 27, 2322–2327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Egawa, S.; Hirai, K.; Matsumoto, R.; Yoshii, T.; Yuasa, M.; Okawa, A.; Sugo, K.; Sotome, S. Efficacy of antibiotic-loaded hydroxyapatite/collagen composites is dependent on adsorbability for treating staphylococcus aureus osteomyelitis in rats. J. Orthop. Res. 2020, 38, 843–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  158. Bertsch, P.; Schneider, L.; Bovone, G.; Tibbitt, M.W.; Fischer, P.; Gstohl, S. Injectable biocompatible hydrogels from cellulose nanocrystals for locally targeted sustained drug release. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 38578–38585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Boot, W.; Vogely, H.C.; Jiao, C.; Nikkels, P.G.; Pouran, B.; van Rijen, M.H.; Ekkelenkamp, M.B.; Hansch, G.M.; Dhert, W.J.; Gawlitta, D. Prophylaxis of implant-related infections by local release of vancomycin from a hydrogel in rabbits. Eur. Cell Mater. 2020, 39, 108–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Colding-Rasmussen, T.; Horstmann, P.; Petersen, M.M.; Hettwer, W. Antibiotic elution characteristics and pharmacokinetics of gentamicin and vancomycin from a mineral antibiotic carrier: An in vivo evaluation of 32 clinical cases. J. Bone Jt. Infect. 2018, 3, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  161. Loftus, R.W.; Dexter, F.; Goodheart, M.J.; McDonald, M.; Keech, J.; Noiseux, N.; Pugely, A.; Sharp, W.; Sharafuddin, M.; Lawrence, W.T.; et al. The effect of improving basic preventive measures in the perioperative arena on staphylococcus aureus transmission and surgical site infections: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw. Open 2020, 3, e201934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  162. Paziuk, T.M.; Luzzi, A.J.; Fleischman, A.N.; Goswami, K.; Schwenk, E.S.; Levicoff, E.A.; Parvizi, J. General vs spinal anesthesia for total joint arthroplasty: A single-institution observational review. J. Arthroplast. 2020, 35, 955–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Matharu, G.S.; Garriga, C.; Rangan, A.; Judge, A. Does regional anesthesia reduce complications following total hip and knee replacement compared with general anesthesia? An analysis from the national joint registry for england, wales, northern ireland and the isle of man. J. Arthroplast. 2020, 35, 1521–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Simpson, J.B.; Thomas, V.S.; Ismaily, S.K.; Muradov, P.I.; Noble, P.C.; Incavo, S.J. Hypothermia in total joint arthroplasty: A wake-up call. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 1012–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Matos, J.R.; McSwain, J.R.; Wolf, B.J.; Doty, J.W.; Wilson, S.H. Examination of intra-operative core temperature in joint arthroplasty: A single-institution prospective observational study. Int. Orthop. 2018, 42, 2513–2519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Weenink, R.P.; de Jonge, S.W.; van Hulst, R.A.; Wingelaar, T.T.; van Ooij, P.A.M.; Immink, R.V.; Preckel, B.; Hollmann, M.W. Perioperative hyperoxyphobia: Justified or not? Benefits and harms of hyperoxia during surgery. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  167. Naranje, S.; Lendway, L.; Mehle, S.; Gioe, T.J. Does operative time affect infection rate in primary total knee arthroplasty? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2015, 473, 64–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  168. Dicks, K.V.; Baker, A.W.; Durkin, M.J.; Anderson, D.J.; Moehring, R.W.; Chen, L.F.; Sexton, D.J.; Weber, D.J.; Lewis, S.S. Short operative duration and surgical site infection risk in hip and knee arthroplasty procedures. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2015, 36, 1431–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  169. Surace, P.; Sultan, A.A.; George, J.; Samuel, L.T.; Khlopas, A.; Molloy, R.M.; Stearns, K.L.; Mont, M.A. The association between operative time and short-term complications in total hip arthroplasty: An analysis of 89,802 surgeries. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, 426–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Bohl, D.D.; Ondeck, N.T.; Darrith, B.; Hannon, C.P.; Fillingham, Y.A.; Della Valle, C.J. Impact of operative time on adverse events following primary total joint arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 2256–2262.E4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Whiteside, L.A. Prophylactic peri-operative local antibiotic irrigation. Bone Jt. J. 2016, 98-B, 23–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  172. Calkins, T.E.; Culvern, C.; Nam, D.; Gerlinger, T.L.; Levine, B.R.; Sporer, S.M.; Della Valle, C.J. Dilute betadine lavage reduces the risk of acute postoperative periprosthetic joint infection in aseptic revision total knee and hip arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial. J. Arthroplast. 2020, 35, 538–543.E1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Hernandez, N.M.; Hart, A.; Taunton, M.J.; Osmon, D.R.; Mabry, T.M.; Abdel, M.P.; Perry, K.I. Use of povidone-iodine irrigation prior to wound closure in primary total hip and knee arthroplasty: An analysis of 11,738 cases. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2019, 101, 1144–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Sprowson, A.P.; Jensen, C.; Parsons, N.; Partington, P.; Emmerson, K.; Carluke, I.; Asaad, S.; Pratt, R.; Muller, S.; Ahmed, I.; et al. The effect of triclosan-coated sutures on the rate of surgical site infection after hip and knee arthroplasty: A double-blind randomized controlled trial of 2546 patients. Bone Jt. J. 2018, 100-B, 296–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Leaper, D.; Wilson, P.; Assadian, O.; Edmiston, C.; Kiernan, M.; Miller, A.; Bond-Smith, G.; Yap, J. The role of antimicrobial sutures in preventing surgical site infection. Ann. R Coll Surg. Engl. 2017, 99, 439–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Krishnan, R.J.; Crawford, E.J.; Syed, I.; Kim, P.; Rampersaud, Y.R.; Martin, J. Is the risk of infection lower with sutures than with staples for skin closure after orthopaedic surgery? A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2019, 477, 922–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Chouirfa, H.; Bouloussa, H.; Migonney, V.; Falentin-Daudre, C. Review of titanium surface modification techniques and coatings for antibacterial applications. Acta Biomater. 2019, 83, 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Wang, M.; Tang, T. Surface treatment strategies to combat implant-related infection from the beginning. J. Orthop. Translat. 2019, 17, 42–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  179. Wyatt, M.C.; Foxall-Smith, M.; Roberton, A.; Beswick, A.; Kieser, D.C.; Whitehouse, M.R. The use of silver coating in hip megaprostheses: A systematic review. Hip Int. 2019, 29, 7–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  180. Zajonz, D.; Birke, U.; Ghanem, M.; Prietzel, T.; Josten, C.; Roth, A.; Fakler, J.K.M. Silver-coated modular megaendoprostheses in salvage revision arthroplasty after periimplant infection with extensive bone loss-a pilot study of 34 patients. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2017, 18, 383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  181. Medellin, M.R.; Fujiwara, T.; Clark, R.; Stevenson, J.D.; Parry, M.; Jeys, L. Mechanisms of failure and survival of total femoral endoprosthetic replacements. Bone Jt. J. 2019, 101-B, 522–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Shirai, T.; Tsuchiya, H.; Terauchi, R.; Tsuchida, S.; Mizoshiri, N.; Mori, Y.; Takeuchi, A.; Hayashi, K.; Yamamoto, N.; Ikoma, K.; et al. A retrospective study of antibacterial iodine-coated implants for postoperative infection. Medicine 2019, 98, e17932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Shoji, M.M.; Chen, A.F. Biofilms in periprosthetic joint infections: A review of diagnostic modalities, current treatments, and future directions. J. Knee Surg. 2020, 33, 119–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Busscher, H.J.; Alt, V.; van der Mei, H.C.; Fagette, P.H.; Zimmerli, W.; Moriarty, T.F.; Parvizi, J.; Schmidmaier, G.; Raschke, M.J.; Gehrke, T.; et al. A trans-atlantic perspective on stagnation in clinical translation of antimicrobial strategies for the control of biomaterial-implant-associated infection. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 5, 402–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  185. Kremers, K.; Leijtens, B.; Camps, S.; Tostmann, A.; Koeter, S.; Voss, A. Evaluation of early wound leakage as a risk factor for prosthetic joint infection. J. Am. Assoc. Nurse Pract. 2019, 31, 337–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Rudasill, S.; Gittings, D.J.; Elkassabany, N.M.; Liu, J.; Nelson, C.L.; Kamath, A.F. Preoperative risk factor score predicts malnutrition in total joint arthroplasty patients. J. Surg. Orthop. Adv. 2019, 28, 97–103. [Google Scholar]
  187. Li, Z.; Knetsch, M. Antibacterial strategies for wound dressing: Preventing infection and stimulating healing. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2018, 24, 936–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Matthews, C.N.; Chen, A.F.; Daryoush, T.; Rothman, R.H.; Maltenfort, M.G.; Hozack, W.J. Does an elastic compression bandage provide any benefit after primary tka? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2019, 477, 134–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Keeney, J.A.; Cook, J.L.; Clawson, S.W.; Aggarwal, A.; Stannard, J.P. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy devices improve short-term wound complications, but not long-term infection rate following hip and knee arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, 723–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Newman, J.M.; Siqueira, M.B.P.; Klika, A.K.; Molloy, R.M.; Barsoum, W.K.; Higuera, C.A. Use of closed incisional negative pressure wound therapy after revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in patients at high risk for infection: A prospective, randomized clinical trial. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, 554–559.E1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  191. Benito, N.; Mur, I.; Ribera, A.; Soriano, A.; Rodriguez-Pardo, D.; Sorli, L.; Cobo, J.; Fernandez-Sampedro, M.; Del Toro, M.D.; Guio, L.; et al. The different microbial etiology of prosthetic joint infections according to route of acquisition and time after prosthesis implantation, including the role of multidrug-resistant organisms. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  192. Zeller, V.; Kerroumi, Y.; Meyssonnier, V.; Heym, B.; Metten, M.A.; Desplaces, N.; Marmor, S. Analysis of postoperative and hematogenous prosthetic joint-infection microbiological patterns in a large cohort. J. Infect. 2018, 76, 328–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Rademacher, W.M.H.; Walenkamp, G.; Moojen, D.J.F.; Hendriks, J.G.E.; Goedendorp, T.A.; Rozema, F.R. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not indicated prior to dental procedures for prevention of periprosthetic joint infections. Acta Orthop. 2017, 88, 568–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  194. Suda, K.J.; Calip, G.S.; Zhou, J.; Rowan, S.; Gross, A.E.; Hershow, R.C.; Perez, R.I.; McGregor, J.C.; Evans, C.T. Assessment of the appropriateness of antibiotic prescriptions for infection prophylaxis before dental procedures, 2011 to 2015. JAMA Netw. Open 2019, 2, e193909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  195. Slullitel, P.A.; Onativia, J.I.; Piuzzi, N.S.; Higuera-Rueda, C.; Parvizi, J.; Buttaro, M.A. Is there a role for antibiotic prophylaxis prior to dental procedures in patients with total joint arthroplasty? A systematic review of the literature. J. Bone Jt. Infect. 2020, 5, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  196. Sollecito, T.P.; Abt, E.; Lockhart, P.B.; Truelove, E.; Paumier, T.M.; Tracy, S.L.; Tampi, M.; Beltran-Aguilar, E.D.; Frantsve-Hawley, J. The use of prophylactic antibiotics prior to dental procedures in patients with prosthetic joints: Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for dental practitioners—A report of the american dental association council on scientific affairs. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2015, 146, 11–16.E8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Jahoda, D.; Nyc, O.; Simsa, J.; Kucera, E.; Hanek, P.; Chrz, P.; Pokorny, D.; Tawa, N.; Landor, I.; Sosna, A. Late hematogenous infection of prosthetic joint. Acta Chir. Orthop. Traumatol. Cechoslov. 2008, 75, 88–92. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
  198. Jahoda, D.; Nyc, O.; Simsa, J.; Kucera, E.; Hanek, P.; Chrz, P.; Pokorny, D.; Tawa, N.; Landor, I.; Sosna, A. Late hematogenous infection of prosthetic joints in our patients and proposal for a system of prevention. Acta Chir. Orthop. Traumatol. Cechoslov. 2007, 74, 397–400. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
  199. Rakow, A.; Perka, C.; Trampuz, A.; Renz, N. Origin and characteristics of haematogenous periprosthetic joint infection. Clin. Microbiol Infect. 2019, 25, 845–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Tomas, T. Patient-related risk factors for infected total arthroplasty. Acta Chir. Orthop. Traumatol. Cechoslov. 2008, 75, 451–456. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
  201. Wouthuyzen-Bakker, M.; Lora-Tamayo, J.; Senneville, E.; Scarbourough, M.; Ferry, T.; Uckay, I.; Salles, M.J.; O’Connell, K.; Iribarren, J.A.; Vigante, D.; et al. Erysipelas or cellulitis with a prosthetic joint in situ. J. Bone Jt. Infect. 2018, 3, 222–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  202. Stevignon, T.; Mouton, A.; Meyssonnier, V.; Kerroumi, Y.; Yazigi, A.; Aubert, T.; Lhotellier, L.; Le Strat, V.; Passeron, D.; Graff, W.; et al. Haematogenous prosthetic knee infections: Prospective cohort study of 58 patients. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2019, 105, 647–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Salt, E.; Wiggins, A.T.; Rayens, M.K.; Morris, B.J.; Mannino, D.; Hoellein, A.; Donegan, R.P.; Crofford, L.J. Moderating effects of immunosuppressive medications and risk factors for post-operative joint infection following total joint arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis. Semin. Arthritis Rheum. 2017, 46, 423–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  204. Holzer, R.J.; Dayton, J.D. Registries, risk calculators, and risk-adjusted outcomes: Current usage, limitations, and future prospects. Pediatr. Cardiol. 2020, 41, 443–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. Backhouse, A.; Ogunlayi, F. Quality improvement into practice. BMJ 2020, 368, m865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  206. Eckhoff, M.D.; Bader, J.M.; Nesti, L.J.; Dunn, J.C. Acute complications in total wrist arthroplasty: A national surgical quality improvement program review. J. Wrist Surg. 2020, 9, 124–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Childers, C.P.; Siletz, A.E.; Singer, E.S.; Faltermeier, C.; Hu, Q.L.; Ko, C.Y.; Golladay, G.J.; Kates, S.L.; Wick, E.C.; Maggard-Gibbons, M. Surgical technical evidence review for elective total joint replacement conducted for the ahrq safety program for improving surgical care and recovery. Geriatr. Orthop. Surg. Rehabil. 2018, 9, 2151458518754451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  208. Curtin, A.G.; Anderson, V.; Brockhus, F.; Cohen, D.R. Novel team-based approach to quality improvement effectively engages staff and reduces adverse events in healthcare settings. BMJ Open Qual. 2020, 9, e000741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  209. Kunutsor, S.K.; Beswick, A.D.; Whitehouse, M.R.; Blom, A.W.; Lenguerrand, E. Implant fixation and risk of prosthetic joint infection following primary total hip replacement: Meta-analysis of observational cohort and randomised intervention studies. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  210. Kunutsor, S.K.; Wylde, V.; Whitehouse, M.R.; Beswick, A.D.; Lenguerrand, E.; Blom, A.W. Influence of fixation methods on prosthetic joint infection following primary total knee replacement: Meta-analysis of observational cohort and randomised intervention studies. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  211. Lenguerrand, E.; Whitehouse, M.R.; Beswick, A.D.; Kunutsor, S.K.; Burston, B.; Porter, M.; Blom, A.W. Risk factors associated with revision for prosthetic joint infection after hip replacement: A prospective observational cohort study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2018, 18, 1004–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  212. Lamplot, J.D.; Luther, G.; Mawdsley, E.L.; Luu, H.H.; Manning, D. Modified protocol decreases surgical site infections after total knee arthroplasty. J. Knee Surg. 2015, 28, 395–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  213. Hwang, T.J.; Kesselheim, A.S.; Vokinger, K.N. Lifecycle regulation of artificial intelligence- and machine learning-based software devices in medicine. JAMA 2019, 322, 2285–2286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  214. Loftus, T.J.; Tighe, P.J.; Filiberto, A.C.; Efron, P.A.; Brakenridge, S.C.; Mohr, A.M.; Rashidi, P.; Upchurch, G.R., Jr.; Bihorac, A. Artificial intelligence and surgical decision-making. JAMA Surg. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Greenland, P.; Hassan, S. Precision preventive medicine-ready for prime time? JAMA Intern. Med. 2019, 179, 605–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Lenguerrand, E.; Whitehouse, M.R.; Beswick, A.D.; Kunutsor, S.K.; Foguet, P.; Porter, M.; Blom, A.W.; National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Risk factors associated with revision for prosthetic joint infection following knee replacement: An observational cohort study from england and wales. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2019, 19, 589–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  217. Alamanda, V.K.; Springer, B.D. The prevention of infection: 12 modifiable risk factors. Bone Jt. J. 2019, 101-B, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Blanco, J.F.; Diaz, A.; Melchor, F.R.; da Casa, C.; Pescador, D. Risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty. Arch. Orthop. Trauma. Surg. 2020, 140, 239–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Karas, V.; Kildow, B.J.; Baumgartner, B.T.; Green, C.L.; Attarian, D.E.; Bolognesi, M.P.; Seyler, T.M. Preoperative patient profile in total hip and knee arthroplasty: Predictive of increased medicare payments in a bundled payment model. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 2728–2733.E3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Mahmoudi, E.; Kamdar, N.; Kim, N.; Gonzales, G.; Singh, K.; Waljee, A.K. Use of electronic medical records in development and validation of risk prediction models of hospital readmission: Systematic review. BMJ 2020, 369, m958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Jcm 09 02190 g001 550
Figure 1. Formation of biofilm. PJI, prosthetic joint infection.
Figure 1. Formation of biofilm. PJI, prosthetic joint infection.
Jcm 09 02190 g001
Jcm 09 02190 g002 550
Figure 2. Preventative measures associated with the operating room and aimed at reducing the magnitude of the personnel/patient-derived bacterial load.
Figure 2. Preventative measures associated with the operating room and aimed at reducing the magnitude of the personnel/patient-derived bacterial load.
Jcm 09 02190 g002
Jcm 09 02190 g003 550
Figure 3. Risk management cycle for continual monitoring of quality of practice. The goal of clinical improvement is to control for quality indicators (here, the rate of PJI). An essential component is a systematic approach to the clinical reality based on continual data collection and analysis. The results of this approach should lead to an understanding of how to address the pertinent indicator through effective correction of clinical processes, followed by monitoring. PJI, prosthetic joint infection.
Figure 3. Risk management cycle for continual monitoring of quality of practice. The goal of clinical improvement is to control for quality indicators (here, the rate of PJI). An essential component is a systematic approach to the clinical reality based on continual data collection and analysis. The results of this approach should lead to an understanding of how to address the pertinent indicator through effective correction of clinical processes, followed by monitoring. PJI, prosthetic joint infection.
Jcm 09 02190 g003
Jcm 09 02190 g004 550
Figure 4. Formalization of continuous data collection and processing. The upper layer, “included variables,” represents long-term follow-up/measurement of parameters that can influence each other. The weight of the parameters is indicated by the intensity of the gray lines and the color in the circles. Weight can also equal 0, which would imply that the attributes do not influence each other. The middle layer, “PJI,” corresponds to the formation of the classification model, initially according to the most recent definition of PJI. The output of this layer is a “trained” classification model used for classification of all patients, including future ones. The most significant attributes and their limits, which take the greatest part in decision-making (represented in dark red), are set in particular classification classes (PJI yes; PJI no). The lower layer, “model application,” represents the practical use of the “trained” model for classification of patients. Selected key classification parameters (PJI yes) are shown here, illustrating which values these attributes should acquire to result in the overall classification of “PJI yes.” Of note, the measured values and deviations in classification can lead to recalculation of the model, i.e., returning to the upper layer. PJI, prosthetic joint infection.
Figure 4. Formalization of continuous data collection and processing. The upper layer, “included variables,” represents long-term follow-up/measurement of parameters that can influence each other. The weight of the parameters is indicated by the intensity of the gray lines and the color in the circles. Weight can also equal 0, which would imply that the attributes do not influence each other. The middle layer, “PJI,” corresponds to the formation of the classification model, initially according to the most recent definition of PJI. The output of this layer is a “trained” classification model used for classification of all patients, including future ones. The most significant attributes and their limits, which take the greatest part in decision-making (represented in dark red), are set in particular classification classes (PJI yes; PJI no). The lower layer, “model application,” represents the practical use of the “trained” model for classification of patients. Selected key classification parameters (PJI yes) are shown here, illustrating which values these attributes should acquire to result in the overall classification of “PJI yes.” Of note, the measured values and deviations in classification can lead to recalculation of the model, i.e., returning to the upper layer. PJI, prosthetic joint infection.
Jcm 09 02190 g004
Table
Table 1. Comorbidities and medications that are risk factors for PJI.
Table 1. Comorbidities and medications that are risk factors for PJI.
VariableLevel of EvidenceEstimated Size Effect Population Effect
Systemic malignancyIndividual study [38]
SR [39]		OR 3.1; 95% CI, 1.3–7.2
RR 1.52; 95% CI, 0.98–2.34		Limited
Chronic kidney insufficiencyIndividual studies [40,41,42,43]5-year PJI rates, 8.5%; in transplant patients, 4.5% [44]Low #
Severe hepatic diseaseSR [45] Revision rate, 4% (vs. 0.2% in controls); PJI in 70%; mean infection rate, 4.1% (for urgent cases, 8.6%) Limited
Rheumatoid arthritisSR, MA [46]OR 1.89, 95% CI, 1.34–2.66 ¶¶Moderate
Risk of biologicsIndividual study [47]Compared to a 2.14% 1-year cumulative incidence of PJI with abatacept, predicted incidence ranged from 0.35% (95% CI, 0.11–1.12) with rituximab to 3.67% (95% CI, 1.69–7.88) with tocilizumabLow to moderate
BMI (≥30)
BMI (≥40/<30)		SR, MA [48]RR 2.22; 95% CI, 1.67–2.96
RR 8.48; 95% CI, 3.47–20.71		Strong
MalnutritionSR + MA [49]OR 3.58, 95% CI, 1.82–7.03Moderate
DiabetesSR/MA for SSI/for PJI [39]RR 1.74; 95% CI, 1.45–2.09Strong
SmokingSR/MA [50]OR 2.02; 95% CI, 1.47–2.77Strong *
LymphedemaIndividual study [51]Revision HR 6.19 (95% CI, 2.22–17.23) Limited to low #
HIV + patientsSR [52] Risk ratio 3.31; 95% CI, 1.18–9.29Limited
HypothyroidismIndividual study [53]
Individual study [54] 		OR 2.04; 95% CI, 1.02–4.08 TEA
OR 1.32; 95% CI, 1.03–1.69 TAA 		Low
Prior joint surgerySR [39]RR 2.98; 95% CI, 1.49–5.93Strong
Prior PJI in another jointIndividual study [55] HR 3.3, 95% CI, 1.18–8.97 (patients on chronic suppression: HR 15)NR
Previous steroid administrationSR [39]RR 1.68; 95% CI, 1.26–2.25Low to moderate
Peripheral vascular diseaseIndividual study [54]OR 2.46; 95% CI, 1.87–3.22Low to moderate #
Population effect: limited, occurring in <1% of all patients indicated for TJA; low, occurring in 1–5%; moderate: in 5–10%; strong: >10%; BMI: body mass index; CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio; MA: meta-analysis; NR: not reported; OR: odds ratio; PJI: prosthetic joint infection; RCT: randomized controlled trial; RR: relative risk; SR: systematic review; SSI: surgical site infections; TJA: total joint arthroplasty; *: in dependence on the society/region/state; #: in dependence on severity/stage of a disease; : only for total hip arthroplasty; ¶¶: only for total knee arthroplasty; TEA: only for total elbow surgery; TAA: only total ankle arthroplasty.
Table
Table 2. Examples of preventative measurements that could contribute to decreased risk for PJI in the general population.
Table 2. Examples of preventative measurements that could contribute to decreased risk for PJI in the general population.
InterventionDescription of Effect
Pre-/perioperative serum glucose control, hemoglobin A1c, fructosamineOptimizing for patients with unstable diabetes could target (i) wound healing; (ii) SSI; and (iii) re-admission rate [60,61,62,63].
Reducing BMIOptimizing weight for patients with overweight could target (i) wound healing; (ii) SSI; and (iii) PJI rate [64,65,66].
Patients with BMI >35 are advised to lose weight prior to surgery; however, candidacy restriction is not appropriate because these patients have no other options for pain relief.
Treatment of all preoperative infectionsTo reduce the chance of the development of hematogenous and/or directly spread PJIs.
Staphylococcal decolonization (nasal, skin)Elimination of S. aureus (MRSA) carriers from TJA surgery could contribute to reductions in PJI [57]; however, some patients may be carriers even after decontamination [67,68].
Discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy To reduce the effect of therapy on the capacity and efficacy of the immune system; various recommendations: (i) methotrexate off (1 wk preop.; 2 wks postop.); (ii) anti-TNF agents off (2–8 wks preop.; 2–4 wks postop.) [7]; described in detail elsewhere [69].
Preoperative wash/cloth with antibacterial substancesTo reduce bacterial skin load; all chlorhexidine, dilute povidone-iodine solutions can contribute to reduced risk for SSI/PJI [70,71,72].
Antibacterial incisional drapeTo eliminate the residual bacterial skin load after routine skin preparation [73,74,75].
Novel strategies for systemic/local antibiotics/antimicrobialsExtension and/or prolongation of the antibacterial effect of ATBs via dual [76,77] or extended ATBs [78,79]; limited evidence for intrawound ATBs [80].
The best operating rooms/surgeons *To decrease the intraoperative bacterial load via an experienced surgeon, team, and aseptic theater [81,82,83].
Intraoperative wound wash of antimicrobialsTo decrease the intraoperative bacterial load [84,85].
Implants with antibacterial surfacesTo improve resistance of an implant against bacterial adhesion via antibacterial hydrogel [86], other antibacterial carriers [87,88] or silver coating [89].
Anti-staphylococcal vaccineTo increase efficacy of the immune system to eradicate Staphylococcus spp. intra-/postoperatively [90,91].
* high-volume surgeons working in the best operating rooms; ATB: antibiotic; BMI: body mass index; MA: meta-analysis; MRSA: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; PJI: prosthetic joint infection; postop.: postoperatively; preop.: preoperatively; SSI: surgical site infection; SR: systematic review; TJA: total joint infection; TNF: tumor necrosis factor.
Table
Table 3. List of events that could arise after TJA surgery and recommendations potentially linked to reducing the risk for PJI.
Table 3. List of events that could arise after TJA surgery and recommendations potentially linked to reducing the risk for PJI.
EventRecommendationRef.
Dental interventionEvidence against routine ATB prophylaxis after TJA, only in special clinical situations[193,195,196]
Abdominal surgeryInconclusive evidence, ATBs are indicated, apart from situations always requiring ATB therapy, also for advanced forms of acute appendicitis, perirectal abscess, invasive endoscopy procedures on the colon, soft tissue phlegmon or abscess, surgical treatment of venous ulceration and pressure sores, and limb amputation[197,198,199]
Cardiological interventionsPatients with TJA should not receive ATBs before cardiovascular interventions[199]
DialysisNo recommendation in relation to a combined risk from the chronic vascular approach and end-stage renal insufficiency[40]
Urinary tract intervention, infectionInconclusive evidence, however, a risk-associated procedure on the urogenital system (endoscopic or open surgery, prostate gland biopsy, extracorporeal lithotripsy) could be subject to ATB prophylaxis[197,198,199]
Skin infectionsTreat emergently all erysipelas as it can affect previously healthy TKA[199,200,201,202]
Postoperative immunosuppressive therapyReduce doses of glucocorticoids because prednisone increases risk for a postoperative infection (OR 1.59, P < 0.001)[203]
Propensity-adjusted HR 1.36 (95% CI, 0.90–2.04) for 5–10 mg and 1.86 (95% CI, 1.02–3.37) for >10 mg[47]
described in detail elsewhere[69]
ATB: antibiotic; PJA: prosthetic joint infection; THA: total hip arthroplasty; TKA: total knee arthroplasty, HR: hazard ratio.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gallo, J.; Nieslanikova, E. Prevention of Prosthetic Joint Infection: From Traditional Approaches towards Quality Improvement and Data Mining. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2190. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9072190

AMA Style

Gallo J, Nieslanikova E. Prevention of Prosthetic Joint Infection: From Traditional Approaches towards Quality Improvement and Data Mining. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2020; 9(7):2190. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9072190

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gallo, Jiri, and Eva Nieslanikova. 2020. "Prevention of Prosthetic Joint Infection: From Traditional Approaches towards Quality Improvement and Data Mining" Journal of Clinical Medicine 9, no. 7: 2190. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9072190

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop