Chronic osteomyelitis: what the surgeon needs to know

Chronic osteomyelitis represents a progressive inflammatory process caused by pathogens, resulting in bone destruction and sequestrum formation. It may present with periods of quiescence of variable duration, whereas its occurrence, type, severity and prognosis is multifactorial. The ‘gold standard’ for the diagnosis of chronic osteomyelitis is the presence of positive bone cultures and histopathologic examination of the bone. Its management remains challenging to the treating physician, with a multidisciplinary approach involving radiologists, microbiologists with expertise in infectious diseases, orthopaedic surgeons and plastic surgeons. Treatment should be tailored to each patient according the severity and duration of symptoms, as well as to the clinical and radiological response to treatment. A combined antimicrobial and surgical treatment should be considered in all cases, including appropriate dead space management and subsequent reconstruction. Relapse can occur, even following an apparently successful treatment, which has a major impact on the quality of life of patients and is a substantial financial burden to any healthcare system

Modelling the Costs and Effects of Selective and Universal Hospital Admission Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Background: Screening at hospital admission for carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has been proposed as a strategy to reduce nosocomial infections. The objective of this study was to determine the long-term costs and health benefits of selective and universal screening for MRSA at hospital admission, using both PCR-based and chromogenic media-based tests in various settings. Methodology/Principal Findings: A simulation model of MRSA transmission was used to determine costs and effects over 15 years from a US healthcare perspective. We compared admission screening together with isolation of identified carriers against a baseline policy without screening or isolation. Strategies included selective screening of high risk patients or universal admission screening, with PCR-based or chromogenic media-based tests, in medium (5%) or high nosocomial prevalence (15%) settings. The costs of screening and isolation per averted MRSA infection were lowest using selective chromogenic-based screening in high and medium prevalence settings, at $4,100 and$10,300, respectively. Replacing the chromogenic-based test with a PCR-based test costs $13,000 and$36,200 per additional infection averted, and subsequent extension to universal screening with PCR would cost $131,000 and$232,700 per additional infection averted, in high and medium prevalence settings respectively. Assuming $17,645 benefit per infection averted, the most cost-saving strategies in high and medium prevalence settings were selective screening with PCR and selective screening with chromogenic, respectively. Conclusions/ Significance: Admission screening costs$4,100-$21,200 per infection averted, depending on strategy and setting. Including financial benefits from averted infections, screening could well be cost saving

Should all adjunctive corticosteroid therapy be avoided in the management of hemodynamically stabile Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia?

The purpose of this study was to examine the prognostic impact of corticosteroids in hemodynamically stabile Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB). There were 361 hemodynamically stabile methicillin-sensitive SAB patients with prospective follow-up and grouping according to time-point, dose and indication for corticosteroid therapy. To enable analyses without external interfering corticosteroid therapy all patients with corticosteroid therapy equivalent to prednisone > 10 mg/day for >= 1 month prior to positive blood culture results were excluded. Twenty-five percent (92) of patients received corticosteroid therapy of which 11 % (40) had therapy initiated within 1 week (early initiation) and 9 % (31) had therapy initiated 2-4 weeks after (delayed initiation) positive blood culture. Twenty-one patients (6 %) had corticosteroid initiated after 4 weeks and were not included in the analyses. A total of 55 % (51/92) received a weekly prednisone dose > 100 mg. Patients with early initiated corticosteroid therapy had higher mortality compared to patients treated without corticosteroid therapy at 28 days (20 % vs. 7 %) (OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.27-7.65; p = 100 mg/week the negative prognostic impact on 28-day mortality was accentuated (HR 4.8, p = 0.001). Corticosteroid therapy initiation after 1 week of positive blood cultures had no independent prognostic impact. Early initiation of corticosteroid therapy may be associate to increased mortality in hemodynamically stabile SAB.Peer reviewe

Oral versus intravenous antibiotics for bone and joint infection

BACKGROUND The management of complex orthopedic infections usually includes a prolonged course of intravenous antibiotic agents. We investigated whether oral antibiotic therapy is noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy for this indication. METHODS We enrolled adults who were being treated for bone or joint infection at 26 U.K. centers. Within 7 days after surgery (or, if the infection was being managed without surgery, within 7 days after the start of antibiotic treatment), participants were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous or oral antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on oral antibiotics were permitted in both groups. The primary end point was definitive treatment failure within 1 year after randomization. In the analysis of the risk of the primary end point, the noninferiority margin was 7.5 percentage points. RESULTS Among the 1054 participants (527 in each group), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.3%). Treatment failure occurred in 74 of 506 participants (14.6%) in the intravenous group and 67 of 509 participants (13.2%) in the oral group. Missing end-point data (39 participants, 3.7%) were imputed. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a difference in the risk of definitive treatment failure (oral group vs. intravenous group) of −1.4 percentage points (90% confidence interval [CI], −4.9 to 2.2; 95% CI, −5.6 to 2.9), indicating noninferiority. Complete-case, per-protocol, and sensitivity analyses supported this result. The between-group difference in the incidence of serious adverse events was not significant (146 of 527 participants [27.7%] in the intravenous group and 138 of 527 [26.2%] in the oral group; P=0.58). Catheter complications, analyzed as a secondary end point, were more common in the intravenous group (9.4% vs. 1.0%). CONCLUSIONS Oral antibiotic therapy was noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy when used during the first 6 weeks for complex orthopedic infection, as assessed by treatment failure at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; OVIVA Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN91566927.