Skip Navigation

Antibiotic Prophylaxis and the Risk of Surgical Site Infections following Total Hip Arthroplasty: Timely Administration Is the Most Important Factor

  1. Marjo E. E. van Kasteren1,2,
  2. Judith Manniën3,
  3. Alewijn Ott4,
  4. Bart-Jan Kullberg1,2,
  5. Annette S. de Boer3, and
  6. Inge C. Gyssens4,5
  1. 1Department of Internal Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen
  2. 2Nijmegen University Centre for Infectious Diseases, Nijmegen
  3. 3National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven
  4. 4Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Section of Infectious Diseases, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  5. 5Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  1. Reprints or correspondence: Dr. Marjo E. E. van Kasteren, Dept. of Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands (M.v.Kasteren{at}elisabeth.nl).
 
Next Section

Abstract

Background. Surgical site infections (SSIs) following total hip arthroplasty can lead to prolonged hospitalization, increased morbidity and mortality, and high costs. This article analyzes the effect of various parameters of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis on the risk of SSI following total hip arthroplasty.

Methods. Data about SSI and potential prophylaxis-, patient-, and procedure-related risk factors were prospectively collected for 1922 patients who underwent elective total hip arthroplasty in 11 hospitals that participated in the Dutch intervention project, Surgical Prophylaxis and Surveillance. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to correct for random variation among hospitals.

Results. SSIs (superficial and deep) occurred in 50 patients (2.6%). The highest odds ratios for SSI were found in patients who received prophylaxis after incision (2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9–8.6; P = .07), had an American Society of Anesthesiology score that was >2 (2.8, 95% CI, 0.8–9.2; P = .09), and experienced a duration of surgery that was >75th percentile (2.5; 95% CI, 1.1–5.8; P = .04). Prolonged prophylaxis after the end of surgery and the use of antibiotic-impregnated cement did not contribute to fewer SSIs in this study.

Conclusions. This study suggests that intervention programs in search of amendable factors to prevent SSI should focus on timely administration of antibiotic prophylaxis.

Surgical site infection (SSI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) can lead to prolonged hospitalization, increased morbidity and mortality, and high costs [1, 2]. The health and economic burdens of SSI are not restricted to patients' hospital stays [3]. Deep-implant SSI following THA is almost always diagnosed after discharge. Deep-implant SSIs following THA occur infrequently (0.3%–1.3%) [4–6] but can lead to severe incapacitation [7]. Known risk factors for SSI are related to the environment, surgeon, and patient [8]. Some of these factors are amenable to intervention (e.g., conditions in the operating room). Other factors, such as advanced age and diabetes mellitus, are intrinsic patient risks and cannot be modified [9]. Antimicrobial prophylaxis contributes to the reduction in incidence of SSI and is standard practice for THA. Specific recommendations are available regarding the choice of the antibiotic, duration of prophylaxis, and timing of the first dose [8, 10–12]. The cephalosporins cefazolin and cefuroxime are considered to have equal prophylactic efficacy. Available evidence suggests that administration of the first dose as near to the incision time as possible will achieve a decreased likelihood of SSI. However, controversy exists regarding the optimal duration of prophylaxis in connection with THA. The US advisory statement recommends that antimicrobial prophylaxis be administered within 1 h before incision and discontinued within 24 h after the end of the operation [12]. However, European guidelines recommend a single dose within 30 min before the incision [11, 13]. In addition, despite the potential benefits of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement for joint arthroplasty, controversies remain regarding its use [12].

Most studies that have analyzed risk factors for SSI following THA have mainly focused on patient, procedure, or hospital characteristics [4, 14–16]. However, prospective studies of the contribution of the qualitative aspects of surgical prophylaxis to the prevention of SSI following THA are scarce. We conducted a prospective, multisite intervention study (the Surgical Prophylaxis and Surveillance [CHIPS] project) to research the quality of surgical prophylaxis in The Netherlands and documented patient outcome by surveillance of SSI [17–19]. This project aimed at narrowing the spectrum, shortening the duration, and optimizing the time of administration of prophylactic antibiotics without increasing the incidence of SSI by implementing the national guidelines for surgical prophylaxis. These guidelines, developed by the Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy, recommend intravenous single-dose cefazolin administered within 30 min before the first incision for THA [13]. Here, we explore the contribution of the parameters of the prophylaxis process to the incidence of SSI for the population undergoing THA, with an emphasis on the timing of administration of prophylaxis.

Previous SectionNext Section

Methods

During 2000–2002, 11 of the 13 Dutch hospitals of the CHIPS project provided data on elective, primary THA before and after the implementation of the national guidelines for surgical prophylaxis. Procedures for revision of a hip prosthesis were excluded.

Data collection. All hospitals participated in the national SSI surveillance network PREZIES (Preventie van Ziekenhuisinfecties door Surveillance). Data about the surgical procedure, potential SSI risk factors, and infections for patients who developed SSI were collected according to the PREZIES protocol [20], using the criteria of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [21]. Local infection-control professionals prospectively collected the data and identified cases of SSI. SSIs following THA were categorized as superficial (involving skin or subcutaneous tissue) or deep (involving fascia, muscle, and joint space). Postdischarge surveillance was performed for all patients. Surgeons were requested to describe clinical symptoms and whether a patient had developed an SSI on a registration card that was added to the outpatient medical record. The records were reviewed by the local infection-control professional at 30 days and 1 year after discharge [15]. Data about the quality of prophylaxis were collected from medical, anesthetic, and nursing records and medication charts. The method of prophylaxis data collection and validation are described elsewhere [17]. The choice of the antibiotic, number of doses, time of administration of the first dose and subsequent doses, use of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement, time of induction of anesthesia, and time of incision and closure of the wound were recorded.

Prophylaxis-, patient-, and procedure-related risk factors. Duration of prophylaxis was divided into 3 categories: single-dose (1 or, in case of prolonged surgery, more doses, as recommended by the national guidelines), 24 h (postoperative dosing for 24 h), and >24 h (postoperative dosing for >24 h). Timing of administration of prophylaxis was assessed as the interval (in minutes) between the administration of the first dose and the incision. If prophylaxis was administered by intravenous infusion, the point at which one-half of the infusate had been administered was noted as the time of administration. Timing of administration was divided into 4 categories: within 30 min before incision (as recommended by the national guidelines), 31–60 min before incision, >60 min before incision, and during or after incision. The use of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement was considered a potential confounder of the effect of systemic prophylaxis.

The selection of potential patient- and procedure-related risk factors for SSI included in the national PREZIES surveillance was based on the literature to allow comparison with data generated by surveillance systems of other countries and was limited by feasibility [20, 22]. The factors included sex, age, physical condition of the patient (according to the American Society of Anesthesiology [ASA] score [23]), wound class, duration of surgery of >75th percentile, National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance score [24], and duration of preoperative hospital stay (table 1). The annual volume of surgery and the teaching status of the hospital, which were recently described as important risk factors for THA [15], were also considered as possible confounders. Data about the quality of prophylaxis were linked to the PREZIES SSI database by matching date of birth, admission, and surgery.

Figure 1
View larger version:
Figure 1

The association between the timing of administration of prophylaxis and the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) following total hip arthroplasty.

Table 1
View larger version:
Table 1

Univariate analysis: association of selected variables with surgical site infection (SSI) following total hip arthroplasty.

The CHIPS prophylaxis database contained 2031 consecutive patients who underwent elective primary THA. Linkage with the SSI database was successful for 1999 procedures. For 1922 patients (96%), the data on the timing of antibiotic administration were complete. This data set was considered appropriate for analysis. Missing data for ASA score (n = 19), duration of surgical procedure (n = 7), and duration of surgical prophylaxis (n = 32) were adjusted using the missing value indicator method [25].

Statistical analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS Software, release 9.1 (SAS Institute). The correlation between antibiotic prophylaxis parameters and potential patient and procedure related risk factors for SSI was tested univariately with the χ2 test or Student's t test. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to assess the correlation between the annual number of arthroplasties performed per hospital and the incidence of SSI. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to account for these possibly confounding risk factors. According to our hypothesis, the variables duration and timing of prophylaxis and the use of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement were forced into the multivariable model. The patient- and procedure-related risk factors for SSI, with a threshold of statistical significance of P < .1 in crude analyses, were included in the model. The National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance score was not included in the multivariate analysis because all procedures were clean (value, 0), and its other components (the ASA score and duration of surgery of >75th percentile) were already included in the model.

In the present multicenter study, patients were clustered by hospital. This level of hierarchy can introduce additional sources of variability and correlation (e.g., by hospital-specific treatment policies, risk factors, and the diagnostic accuracy of the infection-control professional). Therefore, a random coefficient model (procedure NLMIXED in SAS) was used to adjust the risk estimates for random variation among hospitals. In this model, both fixed and random effects can be entered nonlinearly. This model is basically a logistic regression model, supplemented with an extra term in the equation for the random effects associated with differences in infection risk among hospitals. Because regular logistic regression models do not take into account interhospital variability, they might overestimate the contribution of patient- and prophylaxis-related factors.

The final multivariate model was used to calculate the predicted probability of developing an SSI for each patient. These probabilities were averaged separately for patients with and for those without an SSI. The mean predicted probability for patients with an SSI was divided by the mean predicted probability for patients without an SSI. This ratio represents a measure of the goodness of fit of the model, with a ratio of 1 indicating that the risk factors in the model do not contribute to the prediction of developing an SSI. Adjusted ORs were expressed with 95% CIs. P < .05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Previous SectionNext Section

Results

All 11 hospitals had operating rooms with laminar air–flow conditions. Drains were routinely used in all hospitals. The annual number of THAs per hospital varied from 47 to 249. Of the 1922 patients included in the analysis, 69% were female, with a mean age (±SD) of 68.8 ± 10.8 years. The ASA score was >2 for 12% of patients. The mean duration of preoperative stay (±SD) was 1.2 ± 2.1 days, the mean duration of the procedure (±SD) was 78.6 ± 35.3 min, and the mean duration of postoperative stay (±SD) was 8.8 ± 5.6 days. All patients received antimicrobial prophylaxis. The antibiotics that were administered were classified according to the Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy guidelines as effective with a narrow spectrum (cefazolin [n = 947], flucloxacillin [n = 48], and erythromycin [n = 8] or clindamycin [n = 1] in cases of allergy) or with a broader spectrum (cefamandole [n = 39], cefuroxime [n = 873], amoxicillin plus netilmicin [n = 1], and clindamycin plus gentamicin [n = 1]). No antibiotic with a very short half-life (e.g., cephalothin; half-life, 0.5 h) was used. For the 2 patients receiving >1 prophylactic antibiotic, the combination was assessed as a single course. In 49% of the procedures, the antibiotic choice was completely according to the guideline. Prophylaxis with an antibiotic of a broader spectrum was not associated with fewer SSIs than prophylaxis with an antibiotic with a more narrow spectrum (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5–1.4; P = .43). Prophylaxis with an antibiotic with a longer half-life (erythromycin [half-life, 1.75 h] and cefazolin [half-life, 2 h]) was not associated with fewer SSIs than prophylaxis with an antibiotic with a shorter half-life (flucloxacillin and cefamandole [half-lives, 0.75 h] and cefuroxime [half-life, 1 h]; OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.5–2.3; P = .75). For 34% of the procedures, no postoperative doses were administered, and for 59%, the first dose was administered within 30 min before incision, according to the guidelines. Antibiotic-impregnated bone cement was used in 757 case patients (39%). SSI occurred in 50 patients (2.6%). Of these infections, 40 were superficial (2.1%), and 10 (0.5%) were deep (including prosthesis-related). The average duration of stay (±SD) for patients without SSI was 9.9 ± 6.0 days, compared with 14.1 ± 12.0 days for patients with SSI.

Univariate analysis. The crude association of the selected prophylaxis-, patient-, and procedure-related variables with SSI is presented in table 1. Administration of the first dose of prophylactic antibiotics after incision was associated with an increased (although statistically nonsignificant) incidence of SSI. Dividing the timing of prophylaxis into 3 categories—within 60 min before incision, >60 min before incision, and during or after incision—did not change the results (OR for timing during or after incision, 2.9; P = .06). Postoperative antibiotic doses and the use of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement were not inversely associated with SSI risk. Older age, comorbidity expressed by ASA score of >2, and prolonged surgery were associated with a higher rate of SSI. Undergoing surgery in a teaching hospital did not affect the risk of SSI (P = .30, by χ2 for risk). The incidence of SSI per hospital was not correlated with the annual volume of total hip procedures (Pearson R, -0.19; P = .58). Rates of SSI according to the time of administration of the first dose are shown in figure 1.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis. The multivariable analysis confirmed that multiple-dose postoperative prophylaxis and the use of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement were not inversely associated with the rate of SSI. Of the 4 potential patient- and procedure-related risk factors that reached the threshold of statistical significance and therefore were included in the model, only duration of surgery of >75th percentile was independently and significantly associated with SSI (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1–5.8) (table 2). Relatively high ORs could be calculated for the independent associations of rate of SSI with ASA score of >2 (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 0.8–9.2) and with timing of administration of prophylaxis after incision (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 0.9–8.6).

Table 2
View larger version:
Table 2

Multivariate analysis of risk factors for surgical site infection following total hip arthroplasty corrected for clustering of effects within hospitals.

The mean predicted probability of the model was .076 for patients with an SSI and .024 for patients without an SSI. The ratio of the means was 3.2, which indicated that according to the model, the likelihood of developing an SSI was 3.2 times higher for patients with the selected risk factors than for patients without the risk factors.

Previous SectionNext Section

Discussion

In this multivariable analysis of prophylaxis-, patient-, and procedure-related risk factors for SSI following THA, prolonged duration of surgery (>75th percentile) was the only independent and statistically significant confounding risk factor. Although it did not reach statistical significance, failure to administer the first dose of antibiotic before incision seemed the most important prophylaxis-related factor for increasing the risk of SSI. These findings are important for clinical practice. Although several other studies have made risk assessments for SSI in orthopedic surgery [4, 14, 15, 26], this is, to our knowledge, the first study to have evaluated the association of SSI with duration of surgery, timing of administration of prophylaxis, and use of antibiotic cement. In addition, by excluding emergencies and revisions, the findings indicate the net effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on incidence of SSI in patients undergoing primary elective THA; previous studies included both emergency and elective surgery [14, 15, 26]. In our surveillance, postdischarge surveillance was performed until 1 year after surgery, and therefore, the incidence of SSI might be higher than in other studies that did not perform postdischarge surveillance. Yet, the SSI incidence rate of 2.6% is comparable with incidence rates found in other surveillance studies of THA [4, 27].

Although not significant, the OR for timing of administration of prophylaxis after incision suggests that the relative risk of SSI increases in the presence of this factor. The number of patients in some timing categories was too small to draw firm conclusions about the optimal preincisional timing period. Previous studies of general and colorectal surgery also found that administering prophylaxis after incision had a detrimental effect on the incidence of SSI [28, 29].

Previous experimental studies have shown the importance of the presence of antibiotics in the tissue at the moment of potential contamination [30, 31]. In another study [32], injection of antibiotics as an intravenous bolus immediately prior to incision resulted in adequate antibiotic levels in the tissue at the start of surgery. During orthopedic surgery, administration of cephalosporins during incision resulted in sufficiently high concentrations of antibiotics in bone at the moment of removal of the femoral head [33, 34]. An advantage of the administration of antibiotics shortly before the incision is that, in most procedures, the concentration of the antibiotic will still be high enough to prevent infection at the end of the procedure, and repeated dosing during prolonged surgery is less often required. The importance of a sufficient concentration of an antibiotic at the time of closure of the wound on the SSI rate was recently established for gentamicin in colorectal surgery [35].

In the present analysis, duration of prophylaxis was not correlated with the rate of SSI. In a report that included data from 22,000 THA procedures in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (during 1987–2001), the incidence of SSI in the group who received single-dose prophylaxis was equal to that in the group who received 4 doses. However, the incidence of aseptic loosening of the joint was higher in the single-dose group [36]. Unfortunately, the authors did not provide data on dosing intervals and timing of administration of the first and subsequent doses, which may have confounded the effect on outcome in this long-term cohort. This is especially important because, in the majority of the cases, cephalothin was used—which has a very short half-life—and consequently, tissue concentrations quickly decrease [37]. It is likely that the use of cephalothin has confounded the results. Cefazolin, which has a much longer half-life and is recommended by many guidelines [11, 13], is likely to negate the use of repeated dosing, as was convincingly demonstrated in our study.

The duration of surgery—identified in our study as the most important risk factor for SSI—could be potentially confounded by other unmeasured factors. Detailed data about complications that could affect duration of surgery (e.g., bleeding, resulting in low antibiotic concentrations) were not collected in our study. Furthermore, duration of surgery seems not readily amenable to change by an intervention. The unchangeable patient risk factors of older age and higher ASA score also resulted in higher ORs for SSI. These risk factors are also described in other studies [4, 26, 29]. In contrast to findings by others, the duration of preoperative hospital stay could not be identified as a risk factor in our study. This discrepancy was probably because of the fact that almost 95% of the patients in our study had a preoperative hospital stay of ⩽1 day.

Apart from patient- or procedure-related risk factors, hospital-related factors (e.g., surgical technique) can influence the incidence of SSI. By using the procedure NLMIXED in SAS with hospital as a level, we took the hierarchical structure of the data into account and thereby corrected for possible random variation among hospitals.

Our study does have some limitations. First, the number of risk factors included in our study was limited to those reported within the PREZIES network. Although diabetes mellitus, malignancy, and corticosteroid use are reflected in the ASA score, separate reporting of these known risk factors might have rendered risk assessment more precise. Other risk factors that are not reflected in the ASA score (e.g., obesity, perioperative body temperature, and oxygenation) were shown to be relevant in other studies [38–40]. Another limitation of our analysis was the relatively low number of SSIs (n = 50), which was the dependent outcome variable of our analysis. Of the 77 patients from the CHIPS database to whom prophylaxis was administered but who were excluded from this analysis because information on timing was not known, 8 patients (10.3%) developed an SSI, compared with 50 (2.6%) of 1922 patients who were included in our analysis (P < .0003). This difference could be because of the characteristics of these patients or could imply that reporting the time of administration of prophylaxis is in itself a marker of correct performance. Finally, the fact that the postdischarge surveillance depended on reporting by the surgeon could have resulted in the underreporting of SSI.

In conclusion, prolonged duration of surgery was the only significant risk factor for SSI following THA. Although it did not reach statistical significance, the timing of the administration of the first dose of an antibiotic after incision seems to be the most important prophylaxis parameter. Multiple postoperative dosing did not contribute to reduction of the incidence of SSI. We strongly recommend that intervention programs on surgical prophylaxis focus on timely administration of the prophylactic antibiotic.

Previous SectionNext Section

Acknowledgments

We thank the infection-control professionals, orthopedic surgeons, and anesthetists of the following participating hospitals in The Netherlands for retrieving the data and for facilitating the study: University Medical Center Leiden (Leiden), Reinier de Graaf Hospital (Delft), Jeroen Bosch Hospital (GZG, Den Bosch), 't Lange Land Hospital (Zoetermeer), Medical Center Rijnmond-Zuid (Zuider, Rotterdam), Bernhoven Hospital (Oss), Oosterschelde Hospital (Goes), VieCuri Medical Centre Noord-Limburg (Venlo), University Hospital Groningen (Groningen), Jeroen Bosch Hospital (Carolus, Den Bosch), and Groene Hart Hospital (Gouda).

Financial support. The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw; project nr 2200.0033).

Potential conflicts of interest. All authors: no conflicts.

  • Received June 30, 2006.
  • Accepted November 20, 2006.
Previous Section
 

References

  1. ↵
    1. Whitehouse JD,
    2. Friedman ND,
    3. Kirkland KB,
    4. Richardson WJ,
    5. Sexton DJ
    . The impact of surgical-site infections following orthopedic surgery at a community hospital and a university hospital: adverse quality of life, excess length of stay, and extra cost. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:183-9.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Coello R,
    2. Charlett A,
    3. Wilson J,
    4. Ward V,
    5. Pearson A,
    6. Borriello P
    . Adverse impact of surgical site infections in English hospitals. J Hosp Infect 2005;60:93-103.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Perencevich EN,
    2. Sands KE,
    3. Cosgrove SE,
    4. Guadagnoli E,
    5. Meara E,
    6. Platt R
    . Health and economic impact of surgical site infections diagnosed after hospital discharge. Emerg Infect Dis 2003;9:196-203.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Ridgeway S,
    2. Wilson J,
    3. Charlet A,
    4. Kafatos G,
    5. Pearson A,
    6. Coello R
    . Infection of the surgical site after arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005;87:844-50.
    CrossRefMedline
    1. Lentino JR
    . Prosthetic joint infections: bane of orthopedists, challenge for infectious disease specialists. Clin Infect Dis 2003;36:1157-61.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    Norwegian Total Hip Arthroplasty Register. 2006. Available at: http://www.haukeland.no/nrl/report2005.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2006.
  7. ↵
    1. Manniën J,
    2. Wille JC,
    3. Snoeren RL,
    4. Van den Hof S
    . Impact of postdischarge surveillance on surgical site infection rates for several surgical procedures: results from the nosocomial surveillance network in The Netherlands. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27:809-16.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Gyssens IC
    . Preventing postoperative infections: current treatment recommendations. Drugs 1999;57:175-85.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Sia IG,
    2. Berbari EF,
    3. Karchmer AW
    . Prosthetic joint infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2005;19:885-914.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Dellinger EP,
    2. Gross PA,
    3. Barrett TL,
    4. et al
    . Quality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:182-8.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    Scottish Intercollegiate Network Guidelines. Antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery. 2001. Available at: http://www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/45/index.html. Accessed 20 June 2006.
  12. ↵
    1. Bratzler DW,
    2. Houck PM,
    3. Surgical Infection Prevention Guidelines Writers Workgroup
    . Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Clin Infect Dis 2004;38:1706-15.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    1. Van Kasteren ME,
    2. Gyssens IC,
    3. Kullberg BJ,
    4. Bruining HA,
    5. Stobberingh EE,
    6. Goris RJ
    . Optimizing antibiotics policy in the Netherlands. V. SWAB guidelines for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. Working Party on Antibiotic Policies (SWAB). Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2000;144:2049-55.
    Medline
  14. ↵
    1. de Boer AS,
    2. Geubbels EL,
    3. Wille J,
    4. Mintjes-de Groot AJ
    . Risk assessment for surgical site infections following total hip and total knee prostheses. J Chemother 2001;13(Spec 1):42-7.
    Medline
  15. ↵
    1. Geubbels EL,
    2. Wille JC,
    3. Nagelkerke NJ,
    4. Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM,
    5. Grobbee DE,
    6. de Boer AS
    . Hospital-related determinants for surgical-site infection following hip arthroplasty. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26:435-41.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Berbari EF,
    2. Hanssen AD,
    3. Duffy MC,
    4. et al
    . Risk factors for prosthetic joint infection: case-control study. Clin Infect Dis 1998;27:1247-54.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Van Kasteren ME,
    2. Kullberg BJ,
    3. de Boer AS,
    4. Mintjes-de Groot J,
    5. Gyssens IC
    . Adherence to local hospital guidelines for surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis: a multicentre audit in Dutch hospitals. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003;51:1389-96.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Van Kasteren ME,
    2. Manniën J,
    3. Kullberg BJ,
    4. et al
    . Quality improvement of surgical prophylaxis in Dutch hospitals: evaluation of a multi-site intervention by time series analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005;56:1094-102.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Manniën J,
    2. van Kasteren ME,
    3. Nagelkerke NJ,
    4. et al
    . Effect of optimized antibiotic prophylaxis on the incidence of surgical site infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27:1340-6.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    1. Geubbels EL,
    2. Mintjes-de Groot AJ,
    3. van den Berg JM,
    4. de Boer AS
    . An operating surveillance system of surgical-site infections in The Netherlands: results of the PREZIES national surveillance network Preventie van Ziekenhuisinfecties door Surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21:311-8.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    1. Horan TC,
    2. Gaynes RP,
    3. Martone WJ,
    4. Jarvis WR,
    5. Emori TG
    . CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Am J Infect Control 1992;20:271-3.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  22. ↵
    Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America, Association for Practitioners in Infection Control, Centers for Disease Control, Surgical Infection Society. Consensus paper on the surveillance of surgical wound infections. Am J Infect Control 1992;20:263-70.
    CrossRefWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    1. Owens WD,
    2. Felts JA,
    3. Spitznagel EL Jr
    . ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology 1978;49:239-43.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  24. ↵
    1. Culver DH,
    2. Horan TC,
    3. Gaynes RP,
    4. et al
    . Surgical wound infection rates by wound class, operative procedure, and patient risk index. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance Systam. Am J Med 1991;91:152-7.
    CrossRef
  25. ↵
    1. Miettinen OS
    1. Miettinen OS
    . Theoretical epidemiology: principles of occurrence research in medicine. In: Missing data representation; Miettinen OS, editor. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1985. p. 231-3.
  26. ↵
    1. de Boer AS,
    2. Mintjes-de Groot AJ,
    3. Severijnen AJ,
    4. van den Berg JM,
    5. van Pelt W
    . Risk assessment for surgical-site infections in orthopedic patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:402-7.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  27. ↵
    National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system report, data summary from January 1992 through June 2004, issued October 2004. Am J Infect Control 2004;32:470-85.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    1. Classen DC,
    2. Evans RS,
    3. Pestotnik SL,
    4. Horn SD,
    5. Menlove RL,
    6. Burke JP
    . The timing of prophylactic administration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical-wound infection. N Engl J Med 1992;326:281-6.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  29. ↵
    1. Lizan-Garcia M,
    2. Garcia-Caballero J,
    3. Asensio-Vegas A
    . Risk factors for surgical-wound infection in general surgery: a prospective study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:310-5.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  30. ↵
    1. Burke JF
    . The effective period of preventive antibiotic action in experimental incisions and dermal lesions. Surgery 1961;50:161-8.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    1. Stone HH,
    2. Hooper CA,
    3. Kolb LD,
    4. Geheber CE,
    5. Dawkins EJ
    . Antibiotic prophylaxis in gastric, biliary and colonic surgery. Ann Surg 1976;184:443-50.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  32. ↵
    1. Wong-Beringer A,
    2. Corelli RL,
    3. Schrock TR,
    4. Guglielmo BJ
    . Influence of timing of antibiotic administration on tissue concentrations during surgery. Am J Surg 1995;169:379-81.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  33. ↵
    1. Alvarez Ferrero MM,
    2. Vree TB,
    3. Baars AM,
    4. Slooff TJ
    . Plasma and bone concentrations of cefuroxime and flucloxacillin: oral versus parenteral administration in 20 arthroplasties. Acta Orthop Scand 1993;64:525-9.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  34. ↵
    1. Polk R,
    2. Hume A,
    3. Kline BJ,
    4. Cardea J
    . Penetration of moxalactam and cefazolin into bone following simultaneous bolus or infusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1983;177:216-21.
    Medline
  35. ↵
    1. Zelenitsky SA,
    2. Ariano RE,
    3. Harding GK,
    4. Silverman RE
    . Antibiotic pharmacodynamics in surgical prophylaxis: an association between intraoperative antibiotic concentrations and efficacy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002;46:3026-30.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Engesaeter LB,
    2. Lie SA,
    3. Espehaug B,
    4. Furnes O,
    5. Vollset SE,
    6. Havelin LI
    . Antibiotic prophylaxis in total hip arthroplasty: effects of antibiotic prophylaxis systemically and in bone cement on the revision rate of 22,170 primary hip replacements followed 0–14 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop Scand 2003;74:644-51.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  37. ↵
    1. Polk HC Jr,
    2. Trachtenberg L,
    3. Finn MP
    . Antibiotic activity in surgical incisions: the basis of prophylaxis in selected operations. JAMA 1980;244:1353-4.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Kurz A,
    2. Sessler DI,
    3. Lenhardt R
    . Perioperative normothermia to reduce the incidence of surgical-wound infection and shorten hospitalization. Study of Wound Infection and Temperature Group. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1209-15.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
    1. Belda FJ,
    2. Aguilera L,
    3. Garcia de la Asuncion,
    4. et al
    . Supplemental perioperative oxygen and the risk of surgical wound infection: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005;294:2035-42.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Choban PS,
    2. Heckler R,
    3. Burge JC,
    4. Flancbaum L
    . Increased incidence of nosocomial infections in obese surgical patients. Am Surg 1995;61:1001-5.
    MedlineWeb of Science
| Table of Contents

This Article

  1. Clin Infect Dis. (2007) 44 (7): 921-927. doi: 10.1086/512192
  1. AbstractFree
  2. » Full Text (HTML)Free
  3. Full Text (PDF)Free

Classifications

Share

  1. Email this article

Navigate This Article

Current Issue

  1. March 1, 2012 54 (5)
  1. Clinical Infectious Diseases
  1. Alert me to new issues

Most