6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Wound drainage after arthroplasty and prediction of acute prosthetic joint infection: prospective data from a multicentre cohort study using a telemonitoring app

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Differentiation between uncomplicated and complicated postoperative wound drainage after arthroplasty is crucial to prevent unnecessary reoperation. Prospective data about the duration and amount of postoperative wound drainage in patients with and without prosthetic joint infection (PJI) are currently absent. Methods: A multicentre cohort study was conducted to assess the duration and amount of wound drainage in patients after arthroplasty. During 30 postoperative days after arthroplasty, patients recorded their wound status in a previously developed wound care app and graded the amount of wound drainage on a 5-point scale. Data about PJI in the follow-up period were extracted from the patient files. Results: Of the 1019 included patients, 16 patients (1.6 %) developed a PJI. Minor wound drainage decreased from the first to the fourth postoperative week from 50 % to 3 %. Both moderate to severe wound drainage in the third week and newly developed wound drainage in the second week after a week without drainage were strongly associated with PJI (odds ratio (OR) 103.23, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 26.08 to 408.57, OR 80.71, 95 % CI 9.12 to 714.52, respectively). The positive predictive value (PPV) for PJI was 83 % for moderate to heavy wound drainage in the third week. Conclusion: Moderate to heavy wound drainage and persistent wound drainage were strongly associated with PJI. The PPV of wound drainage for PJI was high for moderate to heavy drainage in the third week but was low for drainage in the first week. Therefore, additional parameters are needed to guide the decision to reoperate on patients for suspected acute PJI.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Prosthetic-joint infections.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States.

            This study characterizes the patient and clinical factors influencing the economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the United States. The 2001-2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify total hip and knee arthroplasties using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, procedure codes. The relative incidence of PJI ranged between 2.0% and 2.4% of total hip arthroplasties and total knee arthroplasties and increased over time. The mean cost to treat hip PJIs was $5965 greater than the mean cost for knee PJIs. The annual cost of infected revisions to US hospitals increased from $320 million to $566 million during the study period and was projected to exceed $1.62 billion by 2020. As the demand for joint arthroplasty is expected to increase substantially over the coming decade, so too will the economic burden of prosthetic infections. Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier Inc.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Proceedings of the International Consensus on Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

              Louis Pasteur once said that: "Fortune favours the prepared mind." As one of the great scientists who contributed to the fight against infection, he emphasised the importance of being prepared at all times to recognise infection and deal with it. Despite the many scientific discoveries and technological advances, such as the advent of antibiotics and the use of sterile techniques, infection continues to be a problem that haunts orthopaedic surgeons and inflicts suffering on patients. The medical community has implemented many practices with the intention of preventing infection and treating it effectively when it occurs. Although high-level evidence may support some of these practices, many are based on little to no scientific foundation. Thus, around the world, there is great variation in practices for the prevention and management of periprosthetic joint infection. This paper summaries the instigation, conduct and findings of a recent International Consensus Meeting on Surgical Site and Periprosthetic Joint Infection.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Bone Jt Infect
                J Bone Jt Infect
                JBJI
                Journal of Bone and Joint Infection
                Copernicus GmbH
                2206-3552
                13 February 2023
                2023
                : 8
                : 1
                : 59-70
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
                [2 ] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Alrijne Hospital, Leiderdorp, the Netherlands
                [3 ] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
                [4 ] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands
                [5 ] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands
                [6 ] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Reinier Haga Orthopaedic Centre, Zoetermeer, the Netherlands
                [7 ] Department of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
                [8 ] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [9 ] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands
                [10 ] Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
                [11 ] Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Advanced Data Management, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
                [] A full list of authors appears at the end of the paper
                Author notes
                [*] Correspondence: Henk Scheper ( h.scheper@ 123456lumc.nl )
                Article
                01021829
                10.5194/jbji-8-59-2023
                10015257
                36938482
                5afd1920-1773-43ed-9c64-d48084f6760a
                Copyright: © 2023 Henk Scheper et al.

                This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 19 October 2022
                : 21 January 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: Innovation Fund of Dutch Health Insurers (grant number 3687)
                Funded by: Foundation De Merel (grant number BS094 057)
                Categories
                Original Full-Length Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article