CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2019; 54(05): 556-563
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbo.2017.12.011
Artigo Original | Original Article
Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. Published by Thieme Revnter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Effectiveness of Prophylactic Intraosseous Antibiotic versus Intravenous Antibiotic in Knee Surgeries in Pigs: Experimental Study[*]

Article in several languages: português | English
Carlos Augusto de Mattos
1   Serviço de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital e Maternidade Celso Pierro, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brasil
,
1   Serviço de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital e Maternidade Celso Pierro, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brasil
,
Mariana de Oliveira Cyrino
1   Serviço de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital e Maternidade Celso Pierro, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brasil
,
Laura Credidio
2   Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brasil
,
Natália Silveira Virgilli
3   Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brasil
,
Joaquim Simões Neto
4   Serviço de Cirurgia de Urgência de Trauma, Hospital e Maternidade Celso Pierro, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brasil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

29 August 2017

22 December 2017

Publication Date:
29 October 2019 (online)

Abstract

Objective To demonstrate that the intraosseous (IO) access is more effective compared with the intravenous (IV) access for prophylactic antibiotic administration in knee joint surgeries, using 36 pigs as live models.

Materials and Methods Skin, subcutaneous tissue, cartilage, and bone samples were collected, analyzed and compared after the administration of IV or IO antibiotic in different groups.

Results When comparing the IO and IV groups, the IO group showed a higher concentration of prophylactic antibiotic in the skin (p = 0.049), cartilage (p = 0.018), and bone (p = 0.002), in the analysis of the first 24 hours after 30 minutes of infusion.

Conclusion Since complications regarding this practice are rare, the use of this pathway may be an alternative to reduce the risk of surgical site infection in orthopedic surgeries, leading to a decrease in morbidity and mortality and hospital expenses with readmission or prolonged hospitalization time. However, further research and further experimental studies in humans are required, as the effectiveness of the method in pigs has been proved.

* Study developed at Hospital da Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil. Originally Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda.


 
  • Referências

  • 1 Young SW, Zhang M, Freeman JT, Vince KG, Coleman B. Higher cefazolin concentrations with intraosseous regional prophylaxis in TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (01) 244-249
  • 2 Neut D, Hendriks JG, van Horn JR, Kowalski RS, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ. Antimicrobial efficacy of gentamicin-loaded acrylic bone cements with fusidic acid or clindamycin added. J Orthop Res 2006; 24 (02) 291-299
  • 3 Wellman S. Preoperative Antibiotic Dosing for Total Knee Arthroplasty: Intraosseous Versus Systemic Infusion. Principal investigator: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02433704. Study First Received: April 10, 2015. Last Updated: November 11, 2015. Estimated Study Completion Date: June 2018 . Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02433704
  • 4 Yamada K, Matsumoto K, Tokimura F, Okazaki H, Tanaka S. Are bone and serum cefazolin concentrations adequate for antimicrobial prophylaxis?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469 (12) 3486-3494
  • 5 Saegeman V, Lismont D, Verduyckt B, Ectors N, Stuyck J, Verhaegen J. Antimicrobial susceptibility of coagulase-negative staphylococci on tissue allografts and isolates from orthopedic patients. J Orthop Res 2007; 25 (04) 501-507
  • 6 Burke JF. The effective period of preventive antibiotic action in experimental incisions and dermal lesions. Surgery 1961; 50: 161-168
  • 7 Young SW, Roberts T, Johnson S, Dalton JP, Coleman B, Wiles S. Regional intraosseous administration of prophylactic antibiotics is more effective than systemic administration in a mouse model of TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (11) 3573-3584
  • 8 Schurman DJ, Hirshman HP, Kajiyama G, Moser K, Burton DS. Cefazolin concentrations in bone and synovial fluid. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978; 60 (03) 359-362
  • 9 Koneman EW. Diagnóstico microbiológico: texto e atlas colorido. 5a. ed. Rio de Janeiro: MEDSI; 2001
  • 10 Murray PR, Baron JE, Pfaller AM, Tenover CF, Yolken HR. , Eds. Manual of clinical microbiology. 7th ed. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1999
  • 11 Tocantins LM, O'neill JF, Price AH. Infusions Of Blood And Other Fluids Via The Bone Marrow In Traumatic Shock And Other Forms Of Peripheral Circulatory Failure. Ann Surg 1941; 114 (06) 1085-1092
  • 12 Tocantins LM. Rapid absorption of substances injected into the bone marrow. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1940; 45 (01) 292-296
  • 13 Brickman KR, Rega P, Koltz M, Guinness M. Analysis of growth plate abnormalities following intraosseous infusion through the proximal tibial epiphysis in pigs. Ann Emerg Med 1988; 17 (02) 121-123
  • 14 Doyon F, Evrard J, Mazas F, Hill C. Long-term results of prophylactic cefazolin versus placebo in total hip replacement. Lancet 1987; 1 (8537): 860
  • 15 Craig WA. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 26 (01) 1-10 , quiz 11–12