View clinical trials related to Prosthetic Joint Infection.
Filter by:The purpose of this study is to investigate whether there are quantifiable differences in the level of calprotectin in the synovial fluid that allow separation of different modes of joint implant failure (e.g. infected, aseptic loosening). A subset of primary TKA patients (with history of OA) will be included as a baseline.
This study concerns patients having had an infection on their prosthesis (hip, knee,..) and for whom a 2-step exchange of prosthesis has been done. A 2-step exchange consists in explantation of the prosthesis and implementation of a spacer at the first stage, and reimplantation of a new prosthesis in a second stage. Patients with late prosthetic joint infection are at risk for superinfection at the time of reimplantation. The aim of this study is to determine the global cost of management of prosthetic joint infection.
The results found in the literature do not allow to define objectively the indications respective for a one-step or a two-step exchange of prosthetic joint. Some criteria could help to decide for one-step exchange or two-step exchange: bacteria is/are identified, profile of the bacteria, anesthetic difficulties,.. A puncture could allow to identify the bacteria involved in the prosthetic joint infection (PJI) and an antibiotherapy for a few days can be given to the patient in order to decrease the inoculum. Then, a one-step exchange can be performed. The purpose of this study is to describe the management of patients who had a pre-treatment before a one-step exchange of their prosthetic joint.
Because of its prolonged terminal half-life, dalbavancin is an extremely attractive option in treating Gram-positive infections caused by S. aureus including MRSA, and streptococcal species. Systemic bacterial infections due to Staphylococci such as osteomyelitis and septic arthritis, are conditions which require prolonged IV therapy, typically for at least 3-6 weeks, though sometimes more. Due to dalbavancin's prolonged terminal half-life, it may offer the opportunity to substantially reduce costs and morbidity in native joint and prosthetic joint infections with one infusion every fourteen days until completion of therapy.
Pilot study the aim of which is to obtain reliable data on the tolerance, compliance and efficacy of Tedizolid used as prolonged (≥ 6 weeks) monotherapy or in combination therapy for the treatment of patients with orthopedic device infections due to Gram positive cocci.
Chronic prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication of arthroplasty and its treatment continues to fuel the debate on how to manage it appropriately. One stage and two stage exchange surgery both are the conventional surgical procedures for chronic PJI commonly used to date. Two stage surgery disadvantages (major surgery, anesthesia and nosocomial risks, functional impairment between surgeries and a high socio-economic coast) encouraged many surgical teams to adopt one stage exchange surgery which provides equivalent or better outcomes. However one stage surgery encounters a major conceptual difficulty when it comes to implant the new prosthesis in a surgical site microbiologically undetermined and potentially contaminated. Investigators suppose the new prosthesis is implanted in a contaminated setting regardless of bacteria type and antibiotic therapy duration before arthroplasty. The total lack of data answering this question motivated the conception of this prospective study in order to describe the microbiological setting where is implanted the new prosthesis with one stage exchange surgery after surgical excision and antibiotic therapy initiation in chronic PJI.
Total joint replacement is a common clinical practice for patients suffering from disabling arthritis, since it provides significant pain relief and functional recovering. Nevertheless, its outcome is compromised by complications such as periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), which is reported to occur in 1 to 4% of primary total knee arthroplasties (TKA), and approximately 1% of primary total hip replacements (THR). Despite all efforts to restrain PJI, its prevalence may reach even higher proportions if patients undergo a resection arthroplasty or irrigation and débridement for infected prosthesis. That said, timely diagnosis and early isolation of the infected microorganism is utterly important, if proper care is to be delivered. The gold standard for the diagnosis of PJI is the isolation of a microorganism from the intraoperative cultures, combined with the sonication from retrieved joint implants1. This technique applies sound energy to agitate and disrupt biofilm, dislodging adherent bacterias to the bone cement, which has been proved to be a more sensitive method than conventional intraoperative cultures. False-negative percentages were reported to be 15% in patients who did not receive extended antibiotic prophylaxis and 60% if extended antibiotic therapy was administered. Regardless of an adequate clinical, radiographic and surgical suspicion confirming PJI, an organism is not always successfully isolated from the intraoperative cultures, which increases false negatives results. This fact has been trying to be explained by several authors, some of which postulate that antibiotic prophylaxis could interfere with the isolation of the microorganism from the intraoperative cultures. As a result, and acting accordingly to this hypothesis, preoperative antibiotics are often withheld until intraoperative cultures are obtained, hoping that tissues are not loaded with antibiotics. Nevertheless, one should be aware of the adverse consequences of this practice that may result in systemic dissemination of infection. Moreover, Ghanem and Stephen recently concluded that antibiotic prophylaxis does not interfere with the isolation of the microorganism from intraoperative cultures, despite being studies that lack statistical power. Therefore, it is clear that reported studies in this field support both preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis administration, as well its withdrawal, until intraoperative cultures are obtained. This decision in the department study depends exclusively on the treating surgeon judgment. In fact, 48% of all patients admitted at the study hospital with PJI receive preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, which could be related to higher false-negative intraoperative culture and sonication results. Thus, the investigators add substances with chelation properties to hemoculture containers and then inoculate sonication samples. This practice offsets antibiotic interference with intraoperative cultures and has proved to enhance microorganism detection rates. That said, and given the lack of scientific evidence about this clinical practice the investigators are willing to engage a prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial, that will allow us to determine whether intraoperative cultures and sonication samples are affected by antibiotic prophylaxis.
Infection remains a difficult-to-treat complication of total knee arthroplasty. The gold standard treatment is two-stage removal of the prosthesis with later replacement of permanent implants. The first stage consists of removal of the infected arthroplasty components and the surrounding devitalized tissue, copious pulsed irrigation, and placement of a temporary antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer. This spacer typically is left in place six weeks, during which time the patient receives intravenous antibiotics. After the surgeon feels that the infection has been eradicated, or if the patient requires repeat debridement, a second operative procedure is performed. While the use of an antibiotic-loaded spacer is well accepted, whether the spacer should immobilize the knee (a so-called "static" spacer) or allow for range of motion (a so-called "articulating" spacer) is controversial. Proponents of articulating spacers argue that they prevent scarring of the musculature surrounding the knee resulting in easier reimplantation, improved long-term knee function, and improved range of motion. Proponents of static spacers argue that immobilization of the periarticular soft tissues aids in clearance of the infection and is simpler to fashion intraoperatively. While good results have been described with both methods, comparative trials have been conflicting as to whether spacer design alters knee function, operative time, and range of motion. Equipoise exists within the literature, and no randomized clinical trial has been conducted to evaluate this issue. The purpose of this study is to compare articulating and static antibiotic-impregnated spacers for the treatment of chronic periprosthetic infection complicating total knee arthroplasty through a prospective, randomized clinical trial. The goals of this trial are to determine the effect of spacer design upon eradication of infection, knee function, ease of reimplantation, and range of motion. The investigators hypothesize that articulating spacers will provide shorter operative times at reimplantation, while improving knee function and range of motion.
Infection remains one of the most difficult-to-treat complications of total hip arthroplasty. The gold standard treatment is two-stage removal of the prosthesis with later replacement of permanent implants.The first stage consists of removal of the infected arthroplasty components and the surrounding devitalized tissue, copious pulsed irrigation, and placement of a temporary antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer. This spacer is typically left in place six weeks, during which time the patient receives intravenous antibiotics. After the surgeon feels that the infection has been eradicated, or if a second debridement is required, a second operative procedure is performed. While the use of an antibiotic spacer is well accepted, whether the spacer should immobilize the hip (a so-called "static" spacer) or allow for range of motion (a so-called "articulating" spacer) is controversial. Proponents of static spacers argue that immobilization of the periarticular soft tissues aids in clearance of the infection and that these spacers are simpler to fashion intraoperatively. Proponents of articulating spacers argue that they improve hip function, prevent damage to the musculature surrounding the hip, allow easier reimplantation, improve hip function, and prevent dislocation following hip reimplantation. While good results have been described with both methods, comparative trials have been conflicting as to whether spacer design alters hip function, operative time, and dislocation rates. Equipoise exists within the literature, and no randomized clinical trial has been conducted to evaluate this issue. The purpose of this study is to compare articulating and static antibiotic-impregnated spacers for the treatment of chronic periprosthetic infection complicating total hip arthroplasty through a prospective, randomized clinical trial. The goals of this trial are to determine the effect of spacer design upon eradication of infection, hip function, ease of reimplantation, and dislocation rates. The investigators hypothesize that articulating spacers will provide shorter operative times at replantation while improving hip function and hip dislocation rates following hip reimplantation.
This study is being conducted to investigate the potential benefits of using a special type of fluid that can be applied to the skin (Integuseal) in addition to standard surgical skin preparation in patients undergoing total hip replacement (THA) or total knee replacement (TKA). Integuseal is supposed to lock down the skin bacteria and reduce skin infection and other problems. This study will investigate whether Integuseal is effective in reducing persistent wound drainage when used in addition to standard surgical skin preparation for total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee replacement (TKA).