Akhtarnoble4182

Antibiotic spacers play a significant role in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections. They help maintain soft-tissue tension and provide delivery of high dose of antibiotics to the local tissue. The use of static or dynamic spacers is based on multiple factors including the extent of soft-tissue, ligamentous and bone compromise, overall patient function, comorbid conditions, and virulence of the organism. There is no difference in reinfection incidence between static vs dynamic spacers following two-stage reimplantation. Static spacers can be customized to treat all cases of periprosthetic total knee infections and offer intraoperative flexibility to vary the cement quantity and amount of antibiotics in the spacer to provide high-dose local delivery of antibiotics to address the dead space, bone loss, and soft-tissue compromise. Static spacers are especially advantageous in cases of extensor mechanism and ligamentous compromise where articulating spacers may not be able to provide adequate stability. An articulating or nonarticulating antibiotic hip spacer can be placed following the first stage implant removal of a periprosthetic hip joint infection. Antibiotic spacers help fill in the dead space created at the time of resection and provide a high local concentration of antibiotics. Theoretical advantages of a static spacer include a higher elution of antibiotics because of the increased surface area, the ability to protect deficient bone in the proximal femur/acetabulum, and the ability to immobilize the periarticular soft tissues. Advantages of an articulating spacer include improved ambulation and easier motion for the patient, maintenance of soft tissue tension, and an easier surgical reconstruction at the time of the second stage. Additionally, an articulating antibiotic spacer may minimize the risk of dislocation following the second stage reconstruction. The choice of articulating or nonarticulating is currently one of surgeon preference yet it is advised that surgeons consider an articulating spacer for all patients except those with severe femoral/acetabular bone loss or deficient abductors. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most devastating complications following total joint arthroplasty, accounting for a projected 10,000 revision surgeries per year by 2030. Chronic PJI is complicated by the presence of bacterial biofilm, requiring removal of components, thorough debridement, and administration of antibiotics for effective eradication. Chronic PJI is currently managed with single-stage or 2-stage revision surgery. To date, there are no randomized, prospective studies available evaluating eradication rates and functional outcomes between the 2 techniques. In this review, both treatment options are described with the most current literature to guide effective surgical decision-making that is cost-effective while decreasing patient morbidity. Implementation of strategies for prevention of surgical site infection and periprosthetic joint infection is gaining further attention. We provide an overview of the pertinent evidence-based guidelines for infection prevention from the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the second International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection. Future work is needed to ascertain clinical efficacy, optimal combinations, and the cost-effectiveness of certain measures. INTRODUCTION This review summarizes single vs dual antibiotic cement literature, evaluating for synergistic activity with dual antibiotics. METHODS A systematic review was performed for literature regarding dual antibiotics in cement, identifying 13 studies to include for review. RESULTS Many in vitro studies reported higher elution from cement and/or improved bacteria inhibition with dual antibiotics, typically at higher dosages with a manual mixing technique. Limited clinical data from hip hemiarthroplasties and spacers demonstrated that dual antibiotics were associated with improved infection prevention and higher intra-articular antibiotic concentrations. CONCLUSION In addition to broader pathogen coverage, several studies document synergy of elution and increased antibacterial activity when dual antibiotics are added to cement. Limited clinical evidence suggests that dual antibiotic cement may be associated with reduced infection rates. Septic arthritis (SA) of the adult knee and hip is a constantly evolving and urgent surgical issue. The epidemiology has shifted over the last few decades as have the most popular antibiotics and surgical treatments. SA of all types is increasing in the United States. There remains a high variability in the conservative and surgical management options available. selleck inhibitor This review will outline the most current understanding of the etiology and epidemiology of SA and will also discuss the distribution of causative organisms and appropriate treatments for each. A summary of evidence for different debridement and reconstructive techniques will also be presented in addition to novel areas of research to decrease the morbidity of this constantly growing problem. There is growing interest in "minimalist" transcatheter aortic valve implantation (M-TAVI), performed with conscious sedation instead of general anesthesia (GA-TAVI). We assessed the impact of M-TAVI on procedural efficiency, long-term safety, and quality of life (QoL) in 477 patients with severe aortic stenosis (82 years, women 50%, STS 5.0), who underwent M-TAVI (n = 278) or GA-TAVI (n = 199). M-TAVI patients were less likely to have NYHA Class ≥3, valve-in-valve TAVI, and receive self-expanding valves. M-TAVI was completed without conversion to GA in 269 (97%) patients. M-TAVI was more efficient that GA-TAVI including shorter lengths of stay (2 vs 3 days, p 1 valves (0.4 vs 5.5%, p = 0.0004). At 1-month, death/stroke (M-TAVI vs GA-TAVI 4.0 vs 6.5%) and a "safety composite" end point (death, stroke, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, new dialysis, major vascular complication, major or life-threatening bleeding, and new pacemaker 17.6% vs 21.1%) were similar (p = NS for both). At a median follow-up of 365 days, survival curves showed similar incidence of death/stroke as well as the safety composite end point between the groups.