Suscribirse

Critical analysis of experimental models of periprosthetic joint infection - 20/11/15

Doi : 10.1016/j.otsr.2015.08.007 
L. Gatin a, , A. Saleh-Mghir a, b, P. Massin c, d, A.-C. Crémieux a, b
a EA 3647, université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, 78000 Versailles, France 
b Service de maladies infectieuses, hôpital Raymond-Poincaré, 92380 Garches, France 
c Département de chirurgie orthopédique et traumatologique, hôpitaux universitaires Paris Nord–Val-de-Seine, 46, rue Henri-Huchard, 75877 Paris cedex 18, France 
d EA 7334 REMES (recherche clinique coordonnée Ville, hôpital, méthodologies et société), université Paris-Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, 75010 Paris, France 

Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 06 76 73 38 82.

Bienvenido a EM-consulte, la referencia de los profesionales de la salud.
Artículo gratuito.

Conéctese para beneficiarse!

Abstract

Introduction

Because the extreme diversity of clinical situations makes formal clinical trials difficult to carry out, animal models of periprosthetic infection in orthopaedics are needed to understand the aetiology and pathology of these infections, and to test new treatment methods. These experimental models must reproduce the features of the infections encountered in clinical practice. One of the model variables is the method of inoculation: local (intra-articular), intravenous or intra-arterial. Another is the timing of the inoculation: intra-operative or postoperative. Together, these options simulate the different contamination methods: direct, by proximity or blood-borne. However, the chosen inoculation route can also affect the infection rate and severity in the various models, and in some cases do not accurately reproduce the postoperative infections encountered clinically.

Hypothesis

The direct inoculation method is the most effective for inducing a local infection on a foreign body in a joint, and the least iatrogenic.

Methods

A critical analysis of published studies was carried out to evaluate each model against three endpoints, according to the type of inoculation. The primary endpoint was the infection rate, which should be as close as possible to 100%. The secondary endpoints were the mortality rate and rate of spontaneous healing, both of which should be as low as possible. Twenty-one articles were reviewed.

Results

Intra-articular and intra-medullary inoculations had induction rates between 70 and 100%; intra-arterial inoculations had an induction rate of 100%, while intravenous inoculation had a rate of 47 to 77%. The mortality rates were lower with the intra-articular and intramedullary inoculations (5 to 23%) than for the intra-arterial inoculations (37%) and intravenous inoculations (28 to 56%). The spontaneous healing rate was 0 to 30% for intra-articular and intramedullary inoculations, 30 to 53% for intravenous inoculations and 0% for intra-arterial inoculations.

Conclusion

Direct inoculation methods are most effective at reproducing chronic periprosthetic joints infections, without putting the animal's life at risk or allowing for spontaneous healing. The simulation of blood-borne infections is more random.

El texto completo de este artículo está disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Prosthetic joint infection, Animal models, Orthopaedics


Esquema


© 2015  Elsevier Masson SAS. Reservados todos los derechos.
Añadir a mi biblioteca Eliminar de mi biblioteca Imprimir
Exportación

    Exportación citas

  • Fichero

  • Contenido

Vol 101 - N° 7

P. 851-855 - novembre 2015 Regresar al número
Artículo precedente Artículo precedente
  • Is hospital information system relevant to detect surgical site infection? Findings from a prospective surveillance study in posterior instrumented spinal surgery
  • J. Boetto, E. Chan-Seng, G. Lonjon, J. Pech, A. Lotthé, N. Lonjon
| Artículo siguiente Artículo siguiente
  • Treatment of vertebral compression fractures with the cranio-caudal expandable implant SpineJack®: Technical note and outcomes in 77 consecutive patients
  • C. Renaud

Bienvenido a EM-consulte, la referencia de los profesionales de la salud.

Mi cuenta


Declaración CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM se declara a la CNIL, la declaración N º 1286925.

En virtud de la Ley N º 78-17 del 6 de enero de 1978, relativa a las computadoras, archivos y libertades, usted tiene el derecho de oposición (art.26 de la ley), el acceso (art.34 a 38 Ley), y correcta (artículo 36 de la ley) los datos que le conciernen. Por lo tanto, usted puede pedir que se corrija, complementado, clarificado, actualizado o suprimido información sobre usted que son inexactos, incompletos, engañosos, obsoletos o cuya recogida o de conservación o uso está prohibido.
La información personal sobre los visitantes de nuestro sitio, incluyendo su identidad, son confidenciales.
El jefe del sitio en el honor se compromete a respetar la confidencialidad de los requisitos legales aplicables en Francia y no de revelar dicha información a terceros.


Todo el contenido en este sitio: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, sus licenciantes y colaboradores. Se reservan todos los derechos, incluidos los de minería de texto y datos, entrenamiento de IA y tecnologías similares. Para todo el contenido de acceso abierto, se aplican los términos de licencia de Creative Commons.