Aims. Antibiotic prophylaxis involving timely administration of appropriately dosed antibiotic is considered effective to reduce the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) after total hip and total knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA). Cephalosporins provide effective prophylaxis, although evidence regarding the optimal timing and dosage of prophylactic antibiotics is inconclusive. The aim of this study is to examine the association between cephalosporin prophylaxis dose, timing, and duration, and the risk of SSI after THA/TKA. Methods. A prospective multicentre cohort study was undertaken in consenting adults with osteoarthritis undergoing elective primary TKA/THA at one of 19 high-volume Australian public/private hospitals. Data were collected prior to and for one-year post surgery. Logistic regression was undertaken to explore associations between dose, timing, and duration of cephalosporin prophylaxis and SSI. Data were analyzed for 1,838 participants. There were 264 SSI comprising 63 deep SSI (defined as requiring intravenous antibiotics, readmission, or reoperation) and 161 superficial SSI (defined as requiring oral antibiotics) experienced by 249 (13.6%) participants within 365 days of surgery. Results. In adjusted modelling, factors associated with a significant reduction in any SSI and deep SSI included: correct weight-adjusted dose (any SSI; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.99); p = 0.045); commencing preoperative cephalosporin within 60 minutes (any SSI, aOR 0.56 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.89); p = 0.012; deep SSI, aOR 0.29 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.59); p < 0.001) or 60 minutes or longer prior to skin incision (aOR 0.35 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.70); p = 0.004; deep SSI, AOR 0.27 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.83); p = 0.022), compared to at or after skin incision. Other factors significantly associated with an increased risk of any SSI, but not deep SSI alone, were receiving a non-cephalosporin antibiotic preoperatively (aOR 1.35 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.81); p = 0.044) and changing cephalosporin dose (aOR 1.76 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.57); p = 0.002). There was no difference in risk of any or deep SSI between the duration of prophylaxis less than or in excess of 24 hours. Conclusion. Ensuring adequate, weight-adjusted dosing and early, preoperative delivery of prophylactic antibiotics may reduce the risk of SSI in THA/TKA, whereas the duration of prophylaxis beyond 24 hours is unnecessary. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):252–260

Abstract. Introduction. Neck of femur (NOF) fracture patients are at risk of developing venous thromboembolisms (VTE). VTE risks could be reduced by adhering to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendation for 1 month of prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin. This audit aimed to assess and improve local compliance to national guidelines on VTE prophylaxis in NOF fracture patients following discharge. Methods. A retrospective consecutive case series of all NOF fractures treated at our institution from May – July 2021 was conducted. Those not eligible for outpatient VTE prophylaxis were excluded (anticoagulated for other indications, completed prophylactic course in hospital, inpatient death, pharmacological prophylaxis contraindicated). The agent and duration of VTE prophylaxis, and the occurrence of clinically significant VTE or bleeds were recorded. A re-audit was conducted in March 2022. Results. From May – July 2021, only 1/65 (1.5%) patient was discharged on a VTE prophylaxis regime consistent with NICE guidelines (1 enoxaparin, 56 rivaroxaban, 6 apixaban; 58 35-day course, 5 28-day course). A quick-guide document summarising the standard inpatient and outpatient VTE prophylaxis regimes for various orthopaedic indications was designed and widely disseminated. In March 2022, 30/34 (88.2%) patients were discharged with enoxaparin and 24/34 (70.6%) received a 28-day course. There were no cases of clinically significant VTE or bleeds in both cycles. Conclusion. Local compliance to national guidelines improved significantly with the implementation of a standardised VTE prophylaxis protocol. Our quick-guide document is a reproducible way of communicating consensus and ensuring consistency within a department

Aim. In 10% of the presumed aseptic hip or knee revisions, a low-grade infection is unexpectedly diagnosed based on the tissue samples taken during revision. Extended antimicrobial prophylaxis can possibly reduce the failure rate in cases of unexpected PJI, because the prophylaxis can be considered as early empiric treatment. In this randomized controlled study we analysed whether extended antimicrobial prophylaxis compared to a single dose is beneficial to improve the outcome of treatment in unexpected PJI in revision arthroplasty. Method. This study was nested in a randomized clinical trial comparing single-dose cefazolin with prolonged prophylaxis (15 doses of cefazolin over 5 days) for revision arthroplasty of the hip or knee. For this analysis, patients were included if an unsuspected PJI (defined as ≥2 positive intraoperative tissue samples with the same microorganism) was diagnosed. PJI treatment consisted of 12 weeks of a rifampicin-based regimen in Staphylococcal PJI, without removal of the prosthesis. We examined Infection characteristics and success of treatment after one year, defined as the absence of signs or treatment for PJI during follow-up. Results. After randomization of 662 patients, 68 unexpected PJI were diagnosed. In 5 cases no antimicrobial treatment was started. The success rate after one year follow-up for those who received PJI treatment was 96% (28/29) in the single dose group and 91% (31/34) in the extended prophylaxis group (p=1.00). The most frequently identified pathogens in unexpected PJI were Cutibacterium acnes (n=50) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (n=14). The causatives were susceptible for the cefazolin prophylaxis in 61 of the 63 cases. The interval between the stopped prophylaxis and the re-start of antimicrobial treatment was on average 10 days (SD 4) for the single dose and 5 days (SD 4) for the extended group. The mean duration of antimicrobial treatment was 83 days (SD 12) and did not differ between both groups (p=0.16). Conclusions. This is the first randomized controlled trial in which extended prophylaxis showed no benefit on the prosthesis survival for patients with an unexpected PJI after assumed aseptic revision of the hip or knee prosthesis. The results imply that extended prophylaxis should not be given as part of early empiric therapy

Despite the routine use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, postoperative infection following fracture surgery remains a persistent issue with substantial morbidity. The use of additional local antibiotic prophylaxis may have a protective effect and some orthopaedic surgeons have adopted their use in recent years, despite limited evidence of its beneficial effect. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the current literature regarding the effect of prophylactic local antibiotics on the rate of infection in fracture surgery in both open and closed fractures. A comprehensive search of Medline, EMBASE, and PubMed was performed. Cohort studies were eligible if they investigated the effect on infection rate of additional local antibiotic prophylaxis compared with systemic prophylaxis alone following fracture surgery. The data were pooled in a meta-analysis. In total, four randomized controlled trials and 11 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 6161 fractures from various anatomical locations were eligible for inclusion. The majority of the included studies were Level 3 evidence and had a moderate risk of bias. When all fractures were pooled, the risk of infection was significantly reduced when local antibiotics were applied compared with the control group receiving systemic prophylaxis only (OR = 0.39; 95%CI: 0.26 to 0.53, P < 0.001). In particular, there was a significant reduction in deep infections (OR = 0.59; 95%CI: 0.38 to 0.91, P = 0.017). The beneficial effect of local antibiotics for preventing total infection was seen in both open fractures (OR = 0.35; 95%CI: 0.23 to 0.53, P < 0.001) and closed fractures (OR = 0.58; 95%CI: 0.35 to 0.95, P = 0.029) when analyzed separately. This meta-analysis suggests a significant risk reduction for postoperative infection following fracture surgery when local antibiotics were added to standard systemic prophylaxis, with a protective effect present in both open and closed fractures

Aims. Despite recent literature questioning their use, vancomycin and clindamycin often substitute cefazolin as the preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), especially in the setting of documented allergy to penicillin. Topical povidone-iodine lavage and vancomycin powder (VIP) are adjuncts that may further broaden antimicrobial coverage, and have shown some promise in recent investigations. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to compare the risk of acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in primary TKA patients who received cefazolin and VIP to those who received a non-cephalosporin alternative and VIP. Methods. This was a retrospective cohort study of 11,550 primary TKAs performed at an orthopaedic hospital between 2013 and 2019. The primary outcome was PJI occurring within 90 days of surgery. Patients were stratified into two groups (cefazolin vs non-cephalosporin) based on their preoperative antibiotic. All patients also received the VIP protocol at wound closure. Bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to control for potential confounders and identify the odds ratio of PJI. Results. In all, 10,484 knees (90.8%) received cefazolin, while 1,066 knees (9.2%) received a non-cephalosporin agent (either vancomycin or clindamycin) as preoperative prophylaxis. The rate of PJI in the cefazolin group (0.5%; 48/10,484) was significantly lower than the rate of PJI in the non-cephalosporin group (1.0%; 11/1,066) (p = 0.012). After controlling for confounding variables, the odds ratio (OR) of developing a PJI was increased in the non-cephalosporin cohort compared to the cefazolin cohort (OR 2.389; 1.2 to 4.6); p = 0.01). Conclusion. Despite the use of topical irrigant solutions and addition of local antimicrobial agents, the use of a non-cephalosporin perioperative antibiotic continues to be associated with a greater risk of TKA PJI compared to cefazolin. Strategies that increase the proportion of patients receiving cefazolin rather than non-cephalosporin alternatives must be emphasized. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):35–41

Aims. To explore the effect of different durations of antibiotics after stage II reimplantation on the prognosis of two-stage revision for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. This study involved a retrospective collection of patients who underwent two-stage revision for chronic PJI and continued to use extended antibiotic prophylaxis in two regional medical centres from January 2010 to June 2018. The patients were divided into a short (≤ one month) or a long (> one month) course of treatment based on the duration of antibiotics following stage II reimplantation. The difference in the infection control rate between the two groups was compared, and prognostic factors for recurrence were analyzed. Results. A total of 105 patients with chronic PJI were enrolled: 64 patients in the short course group and 41 patients in the long course group. For 99 of the patients, the infection was under control during a follow-up period of at least 24 months after two-stage revision. For the short course group, the mean duration of antibiotic prophylaxis after stage II reimplantation was 20.17 days (SD 5.30) and the infection control rate was 95.3%; for the long course group these were 45.02 days (SD 15.03) and 92.7%, respectively. There was no significant difference in infection control rates between the two groups (p = 0.676). Cox regression analysis found that methicillin-resistant staphylococcus infection (p = 0.015) was an independent prognostic factor for recurrence. Conclusion. After stage II reimplantation surgery of two-stage revision for chronic PJI, extended antibiotic prophylaxis for less than one month can achieve good infection control rate. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(12):790–796

There is an increasing incidence of revision for periprosthetic joint infection. The addition of vancomycin to beta-lactam antimicrobial prophylaxis in joint arthroplasty may reduce surgical site infections, however, the efficacy and safety have not been established. This was a multicenter, double-blind, superiority, placebo-controlled trial. We randomized 4239 adult patients undergoing joint arthroplasty surgery to receive 1.5g vancomycin or normal saline placebo, in addition to standard cefazolin antimicrobial prophylaxis. The primary outcome was surgical site infection at 90-days from index surgery. Perioperative carriage of Staphylococcus species was also assessed. In the 4113 patients included in the modified intention-to-treat population, surgical site infections occurred in 72/2069 (3.5%) in the placebo group and 91/2044 (4. 5%) in the vancomycin group (risk ratio 1.28; 95% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.73; p value 0.11). No difference was observed between the two groups for primary hip arthroplasty procedures. A higher proportion of infections occurred in knee arthroplasty patients in the vancomycin group (63/1109 [4.7%]) compared with the placebo group (42/1124 [3.7%]; risk ratio 1.52; 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 2.23; p value 0.031). Hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 11 (0.5%) patients in the placebo group and 24 (1.2%) in the vancomycin group (risk ratio 2.20; 95% confidence interval 1.08, 4.49) and acute kidney injury in 74 (3.7%) patients in the placebo group and 42 (2.1%) in the vancomycin group (risk ratio 0.57; 95% confidence interval 0.39, 0.83). Perioperative Staphylococcus aureus carriage was detected in 1089/3748 (29.1%) of patients. This is the first randomized controlled trial examining the addition of a glycopeptide antimicrobial to standard beta-lactam surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in joint arthroplasty. The addition of vancomycin to standard cefazolin prophylaxis was not superior to placebo for the prevention of surgical site infections in hip and knee arthroplasty surgery

The incidence of PJI in knee replacements is 2.8% and slightly lower with hip replacement surgery. PJI make up 15% (or even more) of knee revisions. To combat PJI, antibiotic laden bone cement has been used for many decades, but antibiotic stewardship dictates more prudent management of antimicrobials. Projected increase in infection rate, due to increased surgery and latent infection to be almost 5-fold up to 2035. Biofilm is a complex structure of bacteria and polysaccharide matrix and, is recognised as a major component in PJI and other orthopaedic infections. Biofilm is responsible for high incidence of resistance to antimicrobials and ineffective host immune response. Method. Stabilized hypochlorous acid has been reported to have a rapid kill rate on all pathogens, including MDR pathogens associated with chronic and acute wound infections. It destroys biofilm on contact, is not cytotoxic, reduces inflammation and stimulates wound healing. 0,038% of Hypochlorous acid was used as prophylaxis against infection and to treat PJI. We report on our experience with hypochlorous acid as a wound irrigation as prophylaxis against infection (more than 600 cases) and for PJI. We also report on a University study where a head to head analysis was done on the anti-biofilm efficacy between hypochlorous acid 0,038% (Trifectiv Surgical Wound Irrigation) and Product X (an industry-standard product for the prevention and treatment of biofilm infection. Hypochlorous acid offers a valuable addition to the armamentarium of wound antiseptics, with added anti-inflammatory value. An in vitro study demonstrated superior efficacy against biofilm when compared to Product X

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing elective hip arthroplasty surgery. The balance of post-operative VTE prophylaxis and risk of post-operative haemorrhage remains at the forefront of surgeon's mind. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has altered their prophylaxis guidance in the setting of total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to present the VTE incidence in 8,890 patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty between January 1997 and March 2018 with Aspirin as the primary agent for pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. Analysis of prospective data collection from consecutive patients undergoing THA was performed with the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) occurring within 6 months of the index operation as the primary outcome measure. 90-day all-cause mortality of this cohort of patients was also analysed. 8890 patients were reviewed. This included 7235 primary, 224 complex primary and 1431 revision cases. The incidence of DVT was 0.64% after elective THA and the incidence of PE was 0.54%. There was no difference in the incidence between primary and revision cases. The 90-day all-cause mortality was 0.88%. Cardiovascular and respiratory disease were the main causes of death following surgery. Only 0.03% of deaths (n= 3) within 90 days of index surgery were due to VTE. Our results support the use of aspirin as an effective form of prophylaxis against VTE following THA. It is not associated with an increased incidence in symptomatic DVT, PE or death compared to other published studies. The fact that it is inexpensive, readily available, requires no monitoring and does not pose an increased risk of bleeding are other attractive advantages of using aspirin for VTE prophylaxis

Aims. Wrist arthroscopy is a standard procedure in hand surgery for diagnosis and treatment of wrist injuries. Even though not generally recommended for similar procedures, general administration of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) is still widely used in wrist arthroscopy. Methods. A clinical ambispective dual-centre study was performed to determine whether PAP reduces postoperative infection rates after soft tissue-only wrist arthroscopies. Retrospective and prospective data was collected at two hospitals with departments specialized in hand surgery. During the study period, 464 wrist arthroscopies were performed, of these 178 soft-tissue-only interventions met the study criteria and were included. Signs of postoperative infection and possible adverse drug effects (ADEs) of PAP were monitored. Additionally, risk factors for surgical site infection (SSIs), such as diabetes mellitus and BMI, were obtained. Results. The overall infection rate of SSI was zero. Neither in the PAP group (n = 69) nor in the control group (n = 109) were signs of postoperative infection observed. Observed symptoms of ADEs were three-times higher in the PAP group when compared to the control-group (16.3 vs 5.5%; p = 0.043). No major ADEs were observed, but one in ten patients in the PAP group reported mild to severe intestinal or hypersensitivity symptoms. Conclusion. We demonstrate that the number needed to treat (NNT) with PAP to prevent one postoperative infection in soft-tissue arthroscopies of the wrist is > 109. Conversely, symptoms of ADEs were reported by one out of ten patients given PAP. Considering the high NNT to prevent postoperative infection and the large number of ADEs caused by PAP, we recommend not to use PAP routinely in soft-tissue arthroscopies of the wrist. Subsequent large-scale studies should be conducted to substantiate these results. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(4):219–225

Aim. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication after total joint arthroplasty. To prevent PJI, strict infection prevention measures are followed in combination with surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP). To date, scientific reports concerning the optimal duration of SAP in revision arthroplasty are scarce. The aim of this multicenter open-label, randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands, is to investigate the superiority of 5 days (extended) versus a single dose of cefazolin to prevent PJI within the first year after revision arthroplasty of the hip and knee. Method. Included patients with an assumed aseptic hip or knee revision procedure received a single dose of 2 or 3 gram cefazolin preoperatively. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive extended prophylaxis of cefazolin during 5 days postoperatively versus no prophylaxis after wound closure. Patients were excluded if evidence of PJI at revision. The primary endpoint was the incidence of PJI within one year after revision arthroplasty. PJI was defined according to the 2018 Philadelphia consensus criteria. With a sample size of 746 patients, an alpha of 5% and a power of 80%, superiority of the extended regimen would be shown if the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the absolute between-group difference of the percentage of PJI is below −4%. Results. In total 751 patients were included for analysis: 379 in the single dose cefazolin group and 372 in the extended group. Within one year, PJI occurred in 2.6% (10/379) in the single dose group and 2.4% (9/372) in the extended group (risk difference, −0.2 percentage points; 95% CI, −2.5 to 2.0%), thus superiority was not shown. Adverse drug events were seen in 20 cases with extended and 7 cases with a single dose prophylaxis. Conclusions. Extended prophylaxis is not significantly superior to a single dose of cefazolin to prevent PJI within the first year after revision arthroplasty of the hip or knee. This is the first randomized controlled trail in which the duration of SAP in the selected group of patients undergoing revision arthroplasty was studied. Extending SAP after closure of the wound could increase the selection or induction of antimicrobial resistance, has an increased risk for adverse drug events, and is therefore not in line with the primary goal of antimicrobial stewardship, comprising optimizing clinical outcomes and ensuring cost-effective therapy while minimizing unintended consequences of antimicrobial use

Gram-negative organisms are increasingly seen as causative pathogens in orthopaedic fracture surgery, which might necessitate a change in antibiotic prophylaxis protocols. A single-centre retrospective review of antibiogram results from all patients treated for fracture-related infection (FRI) was conducted. Subgroup analysis was undertaken to identify any host, injury or treatment variables predisposed to Gram-negative infection. The bacteriological results of 267 patients who underwent surgical treatment for FRI were analysed. Pathogens were isolated in 216 cases (81%), of which 118 (55%) were Gram-negative infections. Fractures involving the tibia and femur (p=0.007), the presence of soft tissue defect (p=0.003) and bone defects (p=0.001) were associated with an increased risk of developing a Gram- negative FRI. Gram-negative fracture-related infections were associated with injuries experiencing bone loss and those requiring soft tissue reconstruction. It is, therefore, prudent to consider extended Gram-negative directed antimicrobial prophylaxis in these cases to prevent the development of fracture-related infection

Objectives. As well as debridement and irrigation, soft-tissue coverage, and osseous stabilization, systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is considered the benchmark in the management of open fractures and considerably reduces the risk of subsequent fracture-related infections (FRI). The direct application of antibiotics in the surgical field (local antibiotics) has been used for decades as additional prophylaxis in open fractures, although definitive evidence confirming a beneficial effect is scarce. The purpose of the present study was to review the clinical evidence regarding the effect of prophylactic application of local antibiotics in open limb fractures. Methods. A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Cohort studies investigating the effect of additional local antibiotic prophylaxis compared with systemic prophylaxis alone in the management of open fractures were included and the data were pooled in a meta-analysis. Results. In total, eight studies which included 2738 patients were eligible for quantitative synthesis. The effect of antibiotic-loaded poly(methyl methacrylate) beads was investigated by six of these studies, and two studies evaluated the effect of local antibiotics applied without a carrier. Meta-analysis showed a significantly lower infection rate when local antibiotics were applied (4.6%; 91/1986) than in the control group receiving standard systemic prophylaxis alone (16.5%; 124/752) (p < 0.001) (odds ratio 0.30; 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.40). Conclusion. This meta-analysis suggests a risk reduction in FRI of 11.9% if additional local antibiotics are given prophylactically for open limb fractures. However, due to limited quality, heterogeneity, and considerable risk of bias, the pooling of data from primary studies has to be interpreted with caution. Cite this article: M. Morgenstern, A. Vallejo, M. A. McNally, T. F. Moriarty, J. Y. Ferguson, S. Nijs, WJ. Metsemakers. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:447–456. The effect of local antibiotic prophylaxis when treating open limb fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.77.BJR-2018-0043.R1

Thromboembolic disease (TED) remains as a major concern for orthopaedic surgeons and is a well-known complication of lower extremity joint replacement procedures. While there is voluminous literature on the topic, it is difficult for the average orthopaedic surgeon to keep up with all the advancements in this area as well as the newer pharmacological options for prophylaxis. To address this, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) has developed a clinical practice guideline (CPG) in this area to provide treatment recommendations based on the best available evidence. Historically, guidelines for TED prophylaxis have been based largely on randomised controlled trials whose outcome measure was venographically documented deep vein thrombosis (DVT). However, many venographically documented DVTs, particularly those distal to the popliteal vein, are of no clinical consequence. Therefore, in the AAOS CPG the systematic review of the literature was focused on those outcomes that have the most clinical relevance: all-cause mortality, symptomatic or fatal pulmonary embolism (PE), proximal DVT, major bleeding and symptomatic DVT rates. Using these as the clinically important endpoints, it is evident that the extant literature is insufficient to provide definitive guidance in this area and to make specific recommendations about optimal pharmacological prophylaxis. Nonetheless, one strong recommendation has emerged from this systematic review: the guideline recommended against routine post-operative duplex ultrasonography screening of patients who undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty. Only one risk factor – previous history of TED – had evidence demonstrating a higher risk beyond the risk from elective hip or knee arthroplasty itself (weak recommendation). There was not sufficient evidence that other potential risk factors increase the risk of TED, likely because of the relatively high background risk of elective hip or knee arthroplasty. In addition, there is very little evidence defining populations at increased risk for bleeding and bleeding-associated complications associated with pharmacological prophylaxis. However, the panel did come to a consensus that patients with known bleeding disorders or active liver disease are at an increased risk for post-operative bleeding. In these circumstances, it is recommended that mechanical compressive devices be the primary modality of prophylaxis as pharmacologic prophylaxis may increase the risk of bleeding. There was a moderate strength recommendation for the superiority of neuraxial anesthesia to limit blood loss even though there is no demonstrable effect on the incidence of TED. Finally, there was a moderate grade recommendation that pharmacologic agents (including aspirin) and/or mechanical compression devices be utilised for the prevention of VTE in patients that are undergoing elective hip or knee arthroplasty who are not at elevated risk beyond that of the surgery itself for VTE or bleeding. Clearly there is great need for better evidence with appropriately powered studies that examine the most clinically relevant outcomes in TED prophylaxis

Aim. The aim of the present work was (i) to survey the situation of healthcare regarding the use of antibiotics in orthopaedics and trauma surgery in Germany, (ii) to determine which empiric antibiotic regimens are preferred in the treatment of periprosthethic joint infections (PJI) and (iii) to evaluate the hypothetical antibiotic adequacy of the applied empirical antibiotic therapy regimens based on a patient collective of a German university hospital. Method. A survey on empirical and prophylactic antibiotic therapy was conducted at German university and occupational health clinics (BG clinics), each in the specialties of orthopedics and trauma surgery. A total of 71 clinics were contacted by email. The questionnaire sent included open-ended questions on systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in primary hip arthroplasty; a distinction was made between hip arthroplasty due to femoral fractures and elective hip arthroplasty. In addition, the empirical antibiotic therapy used in PJIs was surveyed. To determine the success rate of prophylaxis and therapy according to sensitivity to the antibiotics applied, the survey results were compared with previously published data on antimicrobial treatment in n=81 PJI patients treated in our department between 2017 and 2020. Results. In 93.2% (elective) and 88.6% (fracture care) of the hospitals, 1st- and 2nd-generation cephalosporins are administered perioperatively for infection prophylaxis in primary hip arthroplasty. In contrast, empiric antibiotic treatment for PJI showed a clearly inhomogeneous therapeutic picture. Monotherapy with an aminopenicillin/betalactamase inhibitor is most frequently used (38.7%); 1st- and 2nd-generation cephalosporins are second most frequently used as monotherapy (18.2%). In addition, dual combination therapies have become established, mostly aminopenicillin/betalactamase inhibitor or 1st- and 2nd-generation cephalosporins, whose administration is supplemented with another antibiotic. The most common combination in PJI is aminopenicillin/betalactamase inhibitor + vancomycin (11.4%). The most widely used therapy (monotherapy with aminopenicillin/betalactamase inhibitor) would have covered 69.0% of PJI patients. Monotherapy with 1st- and 2nd-generation cephalosporins would have been susceptible to 57.8% of PJI patients. In contrast, a combination of vancomycin + 1st- and 2nd-generation cephalosporins would have been most effective, with an efficacy of 91.5% according to the resistograms, but this was used by only two hospitals. Conclusions. Empirical antibiotic therapy for the treatment of PJI is applied in more than half of the clinics with a single broad-spectrum beta-lactamase inhibitor antibiotic. This discrepancy between the everyday care in the clinics and the administration of clearly more effective combination therapies underlines the need for recommendation guidelines

The selection of a prophylaxis agent is a balance between efficacy and safety. Total knee arthroplasty patients receive DVT prophylaxis because orthopaedic surgeons are concerned about the morbidity and mortality associated with pulmonary embolism. However, at the same time there is great concern about excessive bleeding. The goal is to provide the appropriate anticoagulation to prevent symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) and DVT but at the same time avoid over anticoagulation which can be associated with bleeding and other wound problems. Therefore, risk stratification is necessary. Although risk stratification is the ideal way to determine the appropriate prophylaxis agent to use for a specific patient, there is no validated risk stratification strategy available today. There is general agreement at this time that patients who have had a prior PE or symptomatic DVT are at higher risk for development of a pulmonary embolism. In addition, there is a general belief that patients who have coagulation abnormalities (i.e. Factor V Leiden, Protein C and S deficiency) have an increased risk of developing a pulmonary embolism. Other factors that have been mentioned as associated with PE after total hip arthroplasty include age, female gender, and higher body mass index. The selection of a prophylaxis regimen should be influenced by the ability to mobilise the patient after surgery

Considerable debate exists regarding which agent(s) should be preferred for venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemical prophylaxis following joint replacement. We assessed the practice of surgeons regarding VTE chemical prophylaxis for primary THR and TKR, pre and post issuing of updated NICE guidance in 2018. A survey, circulated through the British Hip Society and regional trainee networks/collaboratives, was completed by 306 UK surgeons at 187 units. VTE chemical prophylaxis prescribing patterns for surgeons carrying out primary THR (n=258) and TKR (n=253) in low-risk patients were assessed post publication of 2018 NICE recommendations. Prescribing patterns before and after the NICE publication were subsequently explored. Questions were also asked about surgeon equipoise for participation in future RCTs. Following the new guidance, 34% (n=87) used low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) alone, 33% (n=85) aspirin (commonly preceded by LMWH), and 31% (n=81) direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs: with/without preceding LMWH) for THR. For TKR, 42% (n=105) used aspirin (usually monotherapy), 31% (n=78) LMWH alone, and 27% (n=68) DOAC (with/without preceding LMWH). NICE guidance changed the practice of 34% of hip and 41% of knee surgeons, with significantly increased use of aspirin preceded by LMWH for THR (before=25% vs. after=73%;p<0.001), and aspirin for TKR (before=18% vs. after=84%;p<0.001). Significantly more regimens were NICE guidance compliant after the 2018 update for THR (before=85.7% vs. after=92.6%;p=0.011) and TKR (before=87.0% vs. after=98.8%;p<0.001). Support from surgeons for future RCTs was dependent on the clinical question, ranging from 48% participation in trials (effectiveness of aspirin vs. a DOAC) to 79% (effectiveness of 14 days LMWH vs. 28 days LMWH). Over one-third of surveyed surgeons changed their VTE chemical prophylaxis in response to 2018 NICE recommendations, with more THR and TKR surgeons now compliant with latest NICE guidance. The major change in practice was an increased use of aspirin for VTE chemical prophylaxis. Furthermore, there is an appetite amongst UK surgeons for participating in future RCTs, with a trial comparing standard versus extended duration LMWH likely feasible in current practice

Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is an essential part of orthopaedic surgeries in preventing life-threatening thromboembolic events such as Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) and Pulmonary Embolism (PE). Orthopaedic surgery has the highest incidence rate of thromboembolic events as compared to any other surgical specialities, making it an essential component in managing any orthopaedic case. At Queen's Medical Centre (QMC), a major trauma centre in the United Kingdom (UK), sees up to 750 NOF fracture cases annually, making it one of the busiest trauma and orthopaedic centres in the UK. Our study aims to evaluate how VTE Prophylaxis is conducted in a UK Major Trauma Centre for NOF and pelvic fragility fractures and how human factors can improve its efficacy. The Nottingham University Hospitals (NUH) Trust has implemented new guidelines from August 2019 that patients with fragility fractures such as NOF and pelvic fractures are prescribed with 28 days VTE prophylaxis with Enoxaparin, or their own anti-coagulants if risk of thrombosis exceed the risk of bleeding. This is an adaptation from the trust to align their guidelines closer to the NICE 2018 guidelines. We will be evaluating the initial compliance of VTE Prophylaxis, identify and utilise human factors, then re-analyse the department after implementing interventions on the same batch of junior doctors working in the department. Data of 100 patients with fragility fractures were collected, 50 consecutive patients in the pre-intervention window during August 2019 and 50 in the post-intervention window during November 2019. The pre-intervention data had 43 NOF and 7 Pelvic fractures. Our study showed that 93% of NOF fracture and 100% of pelvic fracture received the correct course of VTE prophylaxis. The data was presented at the local department junior doctor academic session. Three simple human factor interventions were implemented over the course of September and October: Education to the trauma and orthopaedic department on the new guideline, extended VTE labels on drug charts for patients with fragility fractures, VTE reminder labels at doctors' stations. Another 50 consecutive patients' data were collected during November 2019. Data shows that 97.8% of NOF (p>0.05) and 60% of pelvic fracture (p>0.05) received the correct course of VTE prophylaxis. Our data has shown an increase in correct VTE prescription for NOF fracture patients, which is the main bulk of our fragility fracture patients whilst we see a drop in pelvic fracture patients. Due to the limited time frame of four months where junior doctors in the UK rotate between specialities, we are only able to collect data during the first month, implement interventions between datasets and collect data on the final month of the four-month rotation. A future bigger study might provide a more significant result on the department. We believe that the key to achieving 100% VTE prophylaxis in the T&O department is optimising human factors, educating junior doctors, who are not orthopaedic trained, with sufficient information of the guidelines, and evidence of the risk and benefits of providing prolonged VTE prophylaxis for orthopaedic patients. In conclusion, we found that QMC, a major trauma centre with high patient volume and turnover, has a high level of compliance with VTE prophylaxis for fragility fractures and it is imperative that utilising human factors will inch the department closer to its goal of 100% VTE compliance

Aim. Deep infection following endoprosthetic replacement (EPR) of long bones is a devastating complication occurring in 15% of musculoskeletal tumour patients. The recently published PARITY Trial demonstrated that extending antibiotic prophylaxis from 24 hours to 5 days does not reduce infection rates. However, questions remain about the optimal antibiotic choice and dose. Method. A 23-question multiple-choice questionnaire was designed and piloted through an iterative feedback process until the final version was agreed by all authors. Open and closed-ended questions were used to gather information on practice and Likert-type scale responses were used to grade responses to ascertain surgeon perceptions and preferences. The online survey was sent to all surgeon delegates of the 34th Annual Meeting of the European Musculo-Skeletal Oncology Society in London in October 2022. Results. Amongst 61 respondents, 43 were based in Europe and 18 outside of Europe. The majority (48/61) had been in clinical practice over 11 years. Antibiotic choice. 1st or 2nd generation cephalosporins were the first line choice practiced among 49 (80.3%) of respondents. Of these, 39 responded had a 2nd line protocol for beta-lactam allergy which was most commonly clindamycin (18), vancomycin (11) or a combination of a glycopeptide or clindamycin plus gentamicin (4). Respondents changed their first line regimen for radiotherapy in 6/61, chemotherapy in 8/61 and tumour site in 20/61. Re-dosing. Intraoperative re-dosing intervals of 1st and 2nd generation cephalosporins ranged from 2 to 8 hourly. Re-dosing for blood loss ranged from never to when 2 litres was lost. Of the 47 respondents, 24 said intraoperative re-dosing is always reliably administered. Duration. Six (10%) of 61 respondent routinely cover the intraoperative period only, whereas 30 (49%) give 24 hours, 16 (give 48 hours or longer and 8 continue until surgical drains are removed. 31 of 61 change duration depending on clinical situation. The most common reasons for changing were patient risk factors, soft tissue status and previous radiotherapy. 57/61 surgeons were aware of the PARITY Trial. When these respondents were asked whether they had changed practice based on PARITY, 12 said yes, 24 said no and 21 said they always give 24 hours anyway. Conclusions. Amongst an international cohort of orthopaedic oncology surgeons there was a wide variation in practice. Further research should focus on the optimum choice and re-dosing strategy, which have not been defined

Aim. Megaprosthesis have become a standard option in limb preserving surgery after bone resection in musculoskeletal tumors. Recently they have also been used in complex revision arthroplasty in cases with massive bone loss. The aim of this study was to analyze the incidence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) both in primary oncology cases and aseptic revision cases and analyze which are the significant risk factors for PJI with a special interest on the use of prophylactic antibiotic loaded calcium sulfate beads. Method. All patients undergoing surgery with the use of megaprosthesis in our institution between January/2012 and December/2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Data was collected from electronic medical records. We identified 108 procedures involving megaprosthesis in 90 patients with an average follow-up of 37 months. Indications were 79 primary musculoskeletal tumors and 29 aseptic complex revision arthroplasty. Results. Table 1 shows relevant clinical information. No significant risk factor was found either in uni or multivariate analysis. PJI rate was 15% (12/79) for primary musculoskeletal surgery and 31% (9/29) for complex revision surgery. The use of antibiotic loaded calcium sulfate beads did not show an advantage – 22% (9/41) with vs. 18% (12/67) without. Conclusions. In this relatively small series it was not possible to show a significal association between PJI and certain known risk factors such as gender, ASA score, site of surgery (knee) and revision surgery. The use of antibiotic loaded calcium sulfate beads as prophylaxis was not beneficial in reducing PJI rates in our cohort. We acknowledge the limitations of our study: a small sample group, in a single institution with heterogeneity in terms of diagnosis and surgical site. We recognize the need for a multicentric study with a larger cohort to validate these findings. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly