Intraosseous concentration and inhibitory effect of different intravenous cefazolin doses used in preoperative prophylaxis of total knee arthroplasty

Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology - Tập 16 - Trang 331-334 - 2015
Chayanin Angthong1, Pongpaibool Krajubngern1, Warawut Tiyapongpattana2, Boonchana Pongcharoen1, Piya Pinsornsak1, Nattapol Tammachote1, Wanna Kittisupaluck3
1Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand
2Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Technology, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand
3The Surgical Unit, Thammasat University Hospital, Pathum Thani, Thailand

Tóm tắt

The aim of this study was to compare the intraosseous concentrations and the inhibitory effects on the growth of Staphylococcus aureus of 1 g versus 2 g of intravenous (IV) prophylactic cefazolin in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Eighteen patients (21 knees) with primary knee osteoarthritis were divided into two groups receiving 1 g (12 patients: 14 knees) versus 2 g (six patients: seven knees) IV prophylactic cefazolin prior to the incision in TKA. Subchondral bone samples (proximal tibia, distal femur) were taken during the operation. These samples were analyzed for intraosseous concentration of cefazolin and their inhibitory effects on the growth of S. aureus, using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and agar disc diffusion bioassays. The mean intraosseous concentration in the 2 g dose group was significantly higher than in the 1 g dose group in the proximal tibia (p = 0.007) and distal femur (p = 0.016). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of mean inhibitory effects in the proximal tibia or distal femur (p > 0.05). No significant correlations were found between the intraosseous concentrations and inhibitory effects in the proximal tibia (r = 0.18, p = 0.52) and distal femur (r = −0.29, p = 0.30). IV cefazolin at a dose of 2 g produced greater intraosseous concentrations overall than a dose of 1 g. However, the higher intraosseous concentrations did not correlate with higher inhibitory effects. Level III.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Holtom PD (2006) Antibiotic prophylaxis: current recommendation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 14:S98–S100 Ridgeway S, Wilson J, Charlet A, Kafatos G, Pearson A, Coello R (2005) Infection of the surgical site after arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:844–850 Fletcher N, Sofianos D, Berkes MB, Obremskey WT (2007) Prevention of perioperative infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:1605–1618 Segawa H, Tsukayama DT, Kyle RF, Becker DA, Gustilo RB (1999) Infection after total knee arthroplasty. A retrospective study of the treatment of eighty-one infections. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:1434–1445 Wilson MG, Kelley K, Thornhill TS (1990) Infection as a complication of total knee replacement arthroplasty. Risk factors and treatment in sixty-seven cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:878–883 Windsor RE, Bono JV (1994) Infected total knee replacements. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2:44–53 Young SW, Zhang M, Freeman JT, Vince KG, Coleman B (2013) Higher cefazolin concentrations with intraosseous regional prophylaxis in TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(1):244–249 Prokuski L (2008) Prophylactic antibiotics in orthopaedic surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16(5):283–293 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (2004) Information statement: recommendations for the use of intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis in primary total joint arthroplasty. www.aaos.org/about/papers/advistmt/1027.asp. Accessed 27 Feb 2011 Chang Y, Shih HN, Chen DW, Lee MS, Ueng SW, Hsieh PH (2010) The concentration of antibiotic in fresh-frozen bone graft. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:1471–1474 Bruinsma BG, Post IC, van Rijssen LB, de Boer L, Heger M, Zaat SA, van Gulik TM (2013) Antibiotic prophylaxis in (Sub)normothermic organ preservation. In vitro efficacy and toxicity of cephalosporins. Transplantation 95(8):1064–1069 Zegaer BH, Ioannidis A, Babis GC, Ioannidou V, Kossyvakis A, Bersimis S, Papaparaskevas J, Petinaki E, Pliatsika P, Chatzipanagiotou S (2014) Detection of bacteria bearing resistant biofilm forms, by using the universal and specific PCR is still unhelpful in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections. Front Med (Lausanne) 1:30