Journal Logo

Guest Editorial

What’s New in Musculoskeletal Infection

Fehring, Thomas K. MD1,2,a; Fehring, Keith A. MD1; Hewlett, Angela MD, MS3; Higuera, Carlos A. MD4; Otero, Jesse E. MD, PhD1,2; Tande, Aaron J. MD5

Author Information
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery: July 21, 2021 - Volume 103 - Issue 14 - p 1251-1258
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.21.00311
  • Free
  • Disclosures

This update on musculoskeletal infection presents a review of infection-related articles from January 2020 through December 2020 in English-language journals, located using the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) website with a special emphasis on periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The additional sections cover recent salient articles in the areas of spine and trauma.


PJI is a devastating complication for patients expecting pain relief and improved function. However, the negative psychological impact is not limited to the patient. There exists a concurrent negative emotional impact on the treating surgeon. In a sample of Swedish arthroplasty surgeons, many felt guilt, stress, and a sense of failure if their patient incurred a PJI. Receiving peer support was the most affective coping strategy1.

Trying to identify those patients at greatest risk for PJI remains a challenge. Body mass index (BMI) has been shown to be a better predictor of PJI risk than the thickness of adipose tissue in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The systemic effects of obesity and metabolic syndrome may be more important than local adipose factors2. Recently, the effect of socioeconomic status on PJI risk was studied. Using a claims database, the authors found that patients with Medicaid as a primary payer were at greater risk for experiencing PJI3.

The importance of careful initial treatment during the primary surgical procedure was highlighted in a study evaluating PJI risk. In patients requiring aseptic revision within 1 year of the index surgical procedure, the risk of PJI was much higher compared with patients who did not require revision4.

Despite improved infection prevention protocols, little progress has been made in decreasing the incidence of PJI. In a population-based cohort study, no improvement in infection rates was noted over a 15-year period5. Although the incidence of PJI remains unchanged over time, a study to evaluate treatment was similarly disappointing. The survivorships of irrigation and debridement and 2-stage revisions were comparable between 2000 and 2010 and between 2011 and 20166.

Patients who have multiple prosthetic joints in place appear to be at increased risk. In a series of 197 patients with a PJI and other joint replacements in situ, 37 (19%) developed a PJI in another prosthetic joint. Careful clinical and radiographic evaluation of the other prosthetic joints is mandatory. Diagnosis remains difficult because of the concomitant rise in serologic markers and the antibiotic treatment of the infected joint7.

Surgical site infection protocols have become a priority in hospitals performing arthroplasty. Stakeholders have an interest in minimizing the occurrence of PJI, and, in some cases, hospital reimbursement has been linked to surgical site infection prevention. Therefore, accurate measurement of infection outcomes and incidence is critical. Surgical site infection rates are often underestimated using short follow-up periods when hospital-based administrative data are utilized. In 1 study, if only hospital-based data were used, 158 of 926 infected cases would have been missed8. This stresses the importance of using data from both hospital and outpatient settings to obtain accurate rates.

Reimbursement for PJI treatment continues to threaten access. A study comparing work-related values for aseptic compared with septic revisions found that, although septic revision procedures require longer operative time and more burdensome aftercare, reimbursement was lower in the septic cases9. In a similar study, disparities in payment were noted regardless of indication for a revision surgical procedure or case complexity. Revision procedures performed to treat PJI were associated with the highest 90-day costs, yet had similar reimbursement compared with revision procedures performed to treat other indications10.


Several studies elucidated preoperative risk factors for PJI. Patients who underwent arthroplasty and had a preoperative albumin of <3.5 mg/dL had a higher rate of infection within 30 days11. In a cost-effectiveness model, non-selective vitamin D repletion was more valuable than selective testing and repletion in order to prevent PJI12. Evaluating the physical effects of obesity, greater soft-tissue thickness on the anterior and medial aspects of the knee was associated with PJI after TKA13. Morbidly obese patients were also found to be at higher risk for treatment failure after debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR)14. Symptomatic, benign prostatic hyperplasia15 and lymphedema16 were found to predispose to PJI after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Although a 97% survivorship after TKA was noted in patients with previous septic arthritis17, patients with previous PJI of the hip or knee had 1.5-fold higher odds of developing PJI after total hip arthroplasty (THA)17.

The use of intravenous antibiotics and antibiotic-loaded bone cement in TJA was extensively studied in the British National Joint Registry. Antibiotic cement showed a modest protective effect (hazard ratio, 0.79) for hips with regard to PJI18. Similarly, U.S. veterans had a lower rate of revision for PJI after TKA when antibiotic cement was used (1.9% compared with 2.6%)19. In the Kaiser Permanente Total Joint Replacement Registry, plain cement was noninferior to antibiotic cement in TKA overall, but antibiotic cement provided protection against PJI in patients with diabetes20. Dual antibiotic cement was superior to cement with a single antibiotic in PJI prevention21, although patients receiving intravenous antibiotics other than cefazolin preoperatively had higher PJI risk22.

In studying bacterial skin colonization, a high prevalence of positive cultures was seen in hip skin biopsies prior to THA. A predominance of positive culture specimens were from the anterior hip region and grew Cutibacterium on culture23. Staphylococcal screening and eradication, although beneficial in preventing Staphylococcus aureus infection, had no effect on the overall PJI risk after TJA24.

Conflicting findings have been reported for povidone-iodine lavage. In a prospective randomized controlled trial, a reduction in PJI within 90 days after TJA was shown25. However, in a systematic review and meta-analysis comprising 31,213 TJAs, there was no difference in infection rate between patients who did and did not receive povidone-iodine lavage26. Another study showed no difference between chlorhexidine and povidone iodine with respect to PJI within 1 year after TJA27. A combination of powdered vancomycin and povidone iodine in the wound after TKA reduced the PJI rate by 27.8% compared with controls28. Two separate studies on the operating environment demonstrated the value of iodine in reducing bacterial contamination in both sterile water basins29 and impervious drapes30.

Intraoperatively, the use of tranexamic acid reduced the rate of PJI after primary TJA31 and revision TJA32, and Foley catheters increased the odds of developing PJI after TKA (odds ratio [OR], 2.6)33.

Postoperative factors such as corticosteroid injections34 and arthroscopy35 after TKA were shown to increase PJI risk. Patients who underwent aseptic reoperation within 1 year after THA had a higher risk of later development of PJI36. Increased blood glucose variability was associated with a 31% increase in reinfection rate after a 2-stage exchange37.

Diagnosis of PJI

Abdelaziz et al. retrospectively validated the 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) minor criteria for PJI (345 cases), with an excellent area under the curve (AUC, 0.90), sensitivity (0.96), and specificity (0.84), in which the performance was greater in hips than in knees, making these criteria useful to rule out PJI38. Furthermore, if synovial fluid samples are unavailable, these criteria have been shown to be more accurate than the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria39.

A multicenter study determined that the optimal thresholds to diagnose PJI within 90 days of an index arthroplasty were 6,000 cells/µL for a synovial white blood-cell (WBC) count, 39.8 mg/L for serum C-reactive protein (CRP), and 39.5 mm/hr for serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). No significant differences in serum values were found when reducing the analysis time from within 90 days to 30 days. However, the cell count threshold increased to >10,000 cells/µL using the definition for 30 days rather than that for 90 days40.

Serum Biomarkers

Although CRP and ESR are the main screening tests, their thresholds may vary with patient demographic characteristics. ESR levels were higher in older, female, and African-American patients, resulting in more false-positive PJI cases. No differences were found in CRP, which seems more accurate in these subgroups41. D-dimer in revision cases had excellent sensitivity (96%) but low specificity (32%) and poor accuracy (61%) to diagnose PJI42. Qin et al. advocated for CRP and ESR as the best screening tests; however, the combination of D-dimer and CRP had a sensitivity of 98% and a negative predictive value of 96%, suggesting that such combinations might improve PJI diagnostic accuracy43. Bin et al. studied fibrinogen for PJI diagnosis in a small patient cohort and found that it had high specificity (94.6%) with acceptable sensitivity, showing the potential to rule out PJI and confirm infection control before reimplantation44. Moreover, comparisons of fibrinolytic markers (D-dimer, fibrin-degradation product, and fibrinogen) with CRP and ESR found only fibrinogen as a promising marker45-48. Procalcitonin showed poor specificity and sensitivity in a small study, and Busch et al. recommended against its use to diagnose PJI49.

Synovial Fluid Biomarkers

Alpha-defensin was shown by Deirmengian et al. as the most accurate diagnostic biomarker currently available (90% sensitivity and 95% specificity). In a multicenter, prospective study (n = 305) used to validate a lateral-flow test for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)50, the lateral-flow test had no significant differences compared with the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Calprotectin, a biomarker used in chronic inflammatory diseases, has shown a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 95% with an AUC of 0.97, when compared with 2018 ICM criteria as the standard51. Saline solution lavage may help when dry taps occur during aspiration if the percentage of polymorphonuclear cells (PMNs) remains similar to the 80% cutoff (sensitivity, 75%)52.


Rockov et al. showed that aspiration cultures are more likely to correlate with intraoperative cultures with higher aspiration volumes, with a cutoff of 3.5 mL for typical organisms and 12.5 mL for slow-growing organisms53. Microcalorimetry may be equivalent to culture results as shown by Morgenstern et al.54; however, this test alone still has poor sensitivity (39%) when compared with institutional criteria.


Irrigation and Debridement

Machine learning has recently been used to predict outcomes following DAIR for PJI. The most important variables associated with failed treatment were elevated serum CRP levels and the presence of positive blood cultures55. A second DAIR procedure continues to show superior results to single DAIR procedures, with a 74% success rate in a study of 144 cases56. The timing of DAIR for TKA remains important to the success rate. The best results were found in patients who underwent DAIR within 2 weeks of the index arthroplasty, with a 223% increase in reinfection if these procedures were performed after 2 weeks57.

Despite these results, the incidence of DAIR has increased over a 10-year period in the United States, with the most substantial increase seen in the first 90 days58. One series of 263 patients who underwent DAIR and had a mean follow-up of 8.3 years showed a lower rate of reinfection with a dual surgical setup (25%) compared with a single setup (62.5%)59.

The reported success rates for 2-stage exchange of the hip following a failed irrigation and debridement procedure remain variable. In a series of 114 patients with periprosthetic hip infection who had a mean follow-up of 6.2 years, the failure rate was 43% (21 of 49) in the irrigation and debridement group and 12% (8 of 65) in the direct staged revision group60.

Two-Stage Exchange

Two-stage exchange is regarded as the gold standard; however, recent studies have called this into question61,62. The exclusion of those patients who never underwent a reimplantation procedure provided a 9% overestimation of success in patients treated with 2-stage exchange61. Another study of 89 patients found a very high attrition rate of those patients undergoing 2-stage exchange for PJI due to a high risk of death (24%) and inability to complete the 2-stage protocol (32%); patients who completed the 2-stage protocol had a reinfection rate of 15% at 4.5 years62. Another study evaluating 2-stage treatment for periprosthetic hip infection found a success rate of 95.7% at a mean follow-up of 67 months63.

Although overall success rates remain high with a 2-stage protocol, a study examining all complication rates (medical and surgical) during treatment found that 52% of patients incurred a complication at some point during the staged treatment of the PJI, with an 18% mortality rate at a mean follow-up of 3.7 years64.

Three months of oral antibiotics after reimplantation reduced the recurrence rate in patients undergoing a 2-stage exchange. In 185 patients, treatment success was achieved in 87.5% of patients who received 3 months of antibiotics compared with 71.4% in those who did not65.

Articulating antibiotic spacers remain the standard for interim treatment of PJI. Articulating spacers using new primary knee components are becoming increasingly popular, with a success rate of 79% following reimplantation at a follow-up of 3.7 years66. A randomized trial of static spacers (n = 32) and articulating spacers (n = 36) for PJI showed significantly higher range of motion and Knee Society score following reimplantation in the articulating spacer group at a mean follow-up of 3.5 years67.

One-Stage Exchange

Although a prospective, multicenter, randomized study comparing 1-stage exchange with 2-stage exchange is ongoing in the United States, results are not yet available and therefore have not been published. However, 1-stage exchange continues to gain enthusiasm as treatment for PJI.

A series of 72 patients undergoing a 1-stage knee exchange for PJI with a hinged arthroplasty system and tantalum cones were found to have an infection-free survival of 89% and survival free of any revision of 83% at a mean follow-up of 4 years68.

Antimicrobial Treatment

Vancomycin Powder

Intrawound vancomycin powder did not reduce the risk of surgical site infection in patients with acetabular fractures who underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF)69. A retrospective study that evaluated patients who underwent TKA demonstrated a significant decrease in PJI in patients who had powdered vancomycin applied prior to wound closure70. Single-center retrospective studies reviewed patients who had undergone TJA and found that those who received topical vancomycin were less likely to develop PJI, although the difference in patients who underwent THA was not significant in 1 of the studies and baseline PJI rates were low71. A systematic review found that all published studies on intrasite antibiotic powder to prevent surgical site infection were retrospective; some small studies demonstrated a clinical benefit, but no recommendations could be made because of a lack of high-quality evidence72.

Oral Antibiotics in Revision Arthroplasty

A multicenter, randomized controlled trial demonstrated that a 3-month course of oral antibiotics following 2-stage revision reduced the rate of failure due to infection65. The antibiotic regimens were heterogeneous, antibiotic-related adverse events occurred, and it was noted that the majority of infections in both the treatment and control groups were caused by microorganisms that differed from the original infection. Although it is still undetermined which antibiotics should be utilized and if a duration of 3 months of antibiotics is necessary, this trial suggested that there is a potential benefit of oral antibiotics following a 2-stage revision surgical procedure.

Receipt of an extended course of oral antibiotics after DAIR independently predicted treatment success in 1 study; however, extending oral antibiotic therapy beyond 1 year did not improve outcomes, suggesting that the benefit of chronic suppressive antibiotic therapy may plateau73.

A retrospective cohort study evaluating oral antibiotics as a chronic suppressive therapy demonstrated the development of resistance (23.1%) and adverse events necessitating suspension of antibiotics (5.6%). Failure of chronic suppressive therapy was associated with patient age of <70 years, non-gram-positive cocci etiology, and an upper-limb prosthesis74. A retrospective study with a 3.2-year follow-up concluded that chronic suppressive therapy with oral antibiotics is a viable option in patients in whom a further surgical procedure is contraindicated or declined75.

The utility of adjunct rifampin in staphylococcal PJI was evaluated in a randomized controlled trial, and no significant advantage of adding rifampin to standard antibiotic therapy was observed, calling into question the need to add rifampin to treat implant-related infections76.

Antibiotic Stewardship

A systemic review of the available literature found no direct evidence that prophylactic antibiotics should be given prior to dental procedures in patients with TJA, but suggested that unusual situations may call for assessment on a case-by-case basis77. A comprehensive review of the current guidelines and available evidence describes a method to engage both dentists and orthopaedic surgeons in dental stewardship78. A review highlighting antibiotic stewardship strategies in TJA is also available79.

New Therapies

A bacteriophage-derived lysin showed antimicrobial potential in vitro and in a murine model80. A case report81 and a case series82 detailing the successful use of bacteriophage therapy in patients with Staphylococcus aureus PJI further introduced bacteriophage therapy as a potential salvage treatment option.

Other Topics


A systematic review and meta-analysis of 27 studies found a surgical site infection incidence of 3.1%, with a higher incidence observed in instrumented surgical procedures and a posterior approach83. Given the associated cost and morbidity of surgical site infections, prevention and identification of at-risk patients are critical. Another systematic review and meta-analysis suggested no additional benefit to prolonged postoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis after spine surgery84. A multicenter study observed that a surgical procedure performed at an academic center and an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of ≥3 were risk factors for surgical site infection after instrumented fusion, possibly reflecting case complexity and cumulative comorbidities85. Urinary tract infection was associated with a higher rate of infection, in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data set, even after adjustment for confounding factors86.

When spinal implant infection is suspected, accurate diagnosis is critical to management. Histopathology was not consistently helpful, with a sensitivity of only 51% for spinal implant infection87. Improved sensitivity was noted for Staphylococcus and other virulent organisms, with poor sensitivity for Cutibacterium acnes and coagulase-negative staphylococci; in contrast, the sonication of removed spinal implants is a sensitive and specific technique for the diagnosis of infection88. A diagnostic threshold of 20 colony-forming units (CFU)/10 mL yielded an optimal sensitivity and specificity.


A multicenter, randomized controlled trial found no difference in deep surgical site infection between negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) compared with a standard wound dressing following a surgical procedure for a lower-extremity fracture89. However, this study excluded patients with open fractures that could not be closed at the first operative debridement, those most likely to develop infection. Another multicenter randomized trial was performed among patients with Gustilo-Anderson (GA) classification GA-II to III-C open tibial fractures90. In patients who underwent a delayed primary closure, there was no significant difference in the level of disability, deep infection, or nonunion with NPWT. There was a numerically higher rate of deep infection at 30 days in the conventional dressing group (10.1%) compared with the NPWT group (7%); however, the study was not powered to evaluate infection as an outcome. These conflicting findings, in addition to an additional systematic review and meta-analysis that observed a decrease in deep infection when NPWT was used after open fracture91, suggest that the findings must be taken in the context of the overall literature when applied to those individuals with open fractures.

The optimal use of antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent infection after an open fracture remains debated. One retrospective study involving a relatively similar number of GA-I, GA-II, and GA-III fractures demonstrated no benefit of prophylaxis beyond 72 hours92. The choice of specific antimicrobials remains under debate. Historically, a combination of an aminoglycoside and cefazolin has been used for GA-III open fractures. A retrospective, single-center cohort study of patients with GA-III open fractures observed a lower rate of surgical site infection at 30 days in the group receiving piperacillin-tazobactam, compared with the group receiving cefazolin with tobramycin93.

Evidence-Based Orthopaedics

The editorial staff of JBJS reviewed a large number of recently published studies related to the musculoskeletal system that received a higher Level of Evidence grade. In addition to articles cited already in this update, 6 other articles relevant to musculoskeletal infection surgery are appended to this review after the standard bibliography, with a brief commentary about each article to help guide your further reading, in an evidence-based fashion, in this subspecialty area.

Evidence-Based Orthopaedics

Amanatullah DF, Cheng RZ, Huddleston III JI, Maloney WJ, Finlay AK, Kappagoda S, Suh GA, Goodman SB. The routine use of synovial alpha-defensin is not necessary. Bone Joint J. 2020 May;102-B(5):593-9.

In a review of 158 patients, the routine use of alpha defensin testing did not substantially change the ability of orthopaedists or infectious disease consultants to diagnose or rule out PJI in most cases. However, when the diagnosis was in doubt after traditional testing, alpha defensin was useful. Of 27 undecided cases with traditional testing, 24 (89%) benefited from the addition of testing with alpha defensin. It appears that the traditional PJI workup of ESR, CRP, aspirated cell counts with the percentage of PMNs, and culture remain the mainstay of diagnosis, with alpha defensin used in difficult-to-diagnose cases.

Belay ES, Danilkowicz R, Bullock G, Wall K, Garrigues GE. Single-stage versus two-stage revision for shoulder periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Dec;29(12):2476-86. Epub 2020 Jun 18.

Single-stage revision had a recurrence rate of 6.3% compared with a 10.1% recurrence rate for 2-stage revision. However, all of the studies in this review were nonrandomized and retrospective. Selection bias was admitted because there was a higher propensity for treatment of virulent and drug-resistant organisms in the 2-stage group. Such a selection bias could be mitigated by a prospective randomized trial in the future.

Deirmengian CA, Kazarian GS, Feeley SP, Sizer SC. False-positive automated synovial fluid white blood cell counting is a concern for both hip and knee arthroplasty aspirates. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jun;35(6S):S304-7. Epub 2020 Jan 28.

The correlation between automated and manual cell counts in a series of >47,000 synovial fluid samples (44,824 from arthroplasties and 2,242 from native knees) found that the false-positive rate of automated counts when compared with manual counts was 4.4% for native knees, 10.9% for TKAs, and 34.3% for THAs. Although the false-positive issue has been recognized in aspirates of metal-on-metal or corrosion cases, this is the first study demonstrating that automated cell counts may overestimate synovial WBC counts due to arthroplasty-related debris. The authors’ recommendation to verify elevated WBC counts in synovial fluid with a manual cell count may have merit.

Gutman MJ, Stone MA, Namdari S, Abboud JA. Treatment of elbow periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review of clinical outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Feb;29(2):411-9.

In this review of 309 patients in nonrandomized retrospective studies, staphylococci were the most common infecting organism. The success rate for irrigation and debridement and component retention was 56%, and the success rate for a 2-stage exchange was 81%, similar to the data from PJI of the hip and knee. As only 8 cases were treated in a 1-stage exchange, the authors could not comment on this treatment.

Kwon YM, Mahajan J, Tirumala V, Oganesyan R, Yeo I, Klemt C. Sensitivity and specificity of serum and synovial fluid markers in diagnosis of infection in head-neck taper corrosion of metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Dec;35(12):3737-42. Epub 2020 Jun 23.

This study points out the difficulty in diagnosing concomitant adverse local tissue reactions and PJI in cases of head and neck corrosion. In a series of 89 patients with taper corrosion, infected and noninfected cases had similar serum ESR (35 compared with 31 mm/hr), but there were significantly higher CRP values in the infected cases (48 compared with 32 mg/L). Synovial WBC counts and PMN percentages were significantly higher in the infected group: 60,380/µL (89% PMNs) compared with 1,194/µL (32% PMNs). These results must be tempered by the fact that only 11 of 89 patients were infected.

Sigmund IK, Dudareva M, Watts D, Morgenstern M, Athanasou NA, McNally MA. Limited diagnostic value of serum inflammatory biomarkers in the diagnosis of fracture-related infections. Bone Joint J. 2020 Jul;102-B(7):904-11.

In this study, 106 patients were retrospectively evaluated for suspected septic nonunion of fractures. CRP and the WBC count with differential were analyzed. Cases were classified as septic or aseptic based on the Fracture-Related Infection Consensus document. Forty-six patients (43%) were truly infected. Although CRP performed the best in this study, it is not sufficiently accurate to diagnose a septic nonunion, especially when caused by low-virulence organisms. Histopathology and microbiology were more accurate in this study. Hence, the diagnosis of fracture-related infection remains somewhat elusive.


1. Svensson K, Rolfson O, Mohaddes M, Malchau H, Erichsen Andersson A. Reflecting on and managing the emotional impact of prosthetic joint infections on orthopaedic surgeons-a qualitative study. Bone Joint J. 2020 Jun;102-B(6):736-43.
2. Shearer J, Agius L, Burke N, Rahardja R, Young SW. BMI is a better predictor of periprosthetic joint infection risk than local measures of adipose tissue after TKA. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jun;35(6S):S313-8. Epub 2020 Jan 24.
3. DeKeyser GJ, Anderson MB, Meeks HD, Pelt CE, Peters CL, Gililland JM. Socioeconomic status may not be a risk factor for periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jul;35(7):1900-5. Epub 2020 Mar 5.
4. Quinlan ND, Werner BC, Brown TE, Browne JA. Risk of prosthetic joint infection increases following early aseptic revision surgery of total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Dec;35(12):3661-7. Epub 2020 Jul 3.
5. McMaster Arthroplasty Collaborative (MAC). Risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection following primary total hip arthroplasty: a 15-year, population-based cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Mar 18;102(6):503-9.
6. Xu C, Goswami K, Li WT, Tan TL, Yayac M, Wang SH, Parvizi J. Is treatment of periprosthetic joint infection improving over time? J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jun;35(6):1696-1702.e1. Epub 2020 Feb 6.
7. Komnos GA, Manrique J, Goswami K, Tan TL, Restrepo C, Sherman MB, Parvizi J. Periprosthetic joint infection in patients who have multiple prostheses in place: what should be done with the silent prosthetic joints. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Jul 1;102(13):1160-8.
8. Lethbridge LN, Richardson CG, Dunbar MJ. Measuring surgical site infection from linked administrative data following hip and knee replacement. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Feb;35(2):528-33. Epub 2019 Sep 20.
9. Samuel LT, Grits D, Acuña AJ, Piuzzi NS, Higuera-Rueda CA, Kamath AF. Work relative value units do not adequately support the burden of infection management in revision knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Feb 5;102(3):230-6.
10. Malik AT, Li M, Khan SN, Alexander JH, Li D, Scharschmidt TJ. Are current DRG-based bundled payment models for revision total joint arthroplasty risk-adjusting adequately? Bone Joint J. 2020 Jul;102-B(7):959-64.
11. Kishawi D, Schwarzman G, Mejia A, Hussain AK, Gonzalez MH. Low preoperative albumin levels predict adverse outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 May 20;102(10):889-95.
12. Arshi A, Shieh A, Adams JS, Bernthal NM, Zeegen EN, Sassoon AA. Preoperative vitamin D repletion in total knee arthroplasty: a cost-effectiveness model. J Arthroplasty. 2020 May;35(5):1379-83. Epub 2019 Dec 27.
13. Vahedi H, Ward DT, Lee YS, Shohat N, Chen AF. Greater knee soft tissue thickness predisposes patients to subsequent periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jul;35(7):1924-7. Epub 2020 Feb 29.
14. Katakam A, Melnic CM, Bedair HS. Morbid obesity is a risk factor for infection recurrence following debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention for periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Dec;35(12):3710-5. Epub 2020 Jul 6.
15. Yazdi H, Restrepo C, Foltz C, Hammad M, Chung PH, Gomella LG, Parvizi J. Symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: a risk factor for periprosthetic joint infection in male patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Apr 1;102(7):543-9.
16. Kolz JM, Rainer WG, Wyles CC, Houdek MT, Perry KI, Lewallen DG. Lymphedema: a significant risk factor for infection and implant failure after total knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020 Dec 1;28(23):996-1002.
17. Ohlmeier M, Delgado G, Calderon CA, Hartwig CH, Gehrke T, Citak M. Are patients with a history of septic arthritis undergoing total knee arthroplasty at higher risk for revision surgery? A single-center study. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jul;35(7):1857-61. Epub 2020 Mar 6.
18. Leong JW, Cook MJ, O’Neill TW, Board TN. Is the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement associated with a lower risk of revision after primary total hip arthroplasty? Bone Joint J. 2020 Aug;102-B(8):997-1002.
19. Bendich I, Zhang N, Barry JJ, Ward DT, Whooley MA, Kuo AC. Antibiotic-laden bone cement use and revision risk after primary total knee arthroplasty in U.S. veterans. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Nov 18;102(22):1939-47.
20. Namba RS, Prentice HA, Paxton EW, Hinman AD, Kelly MP. Commercially prepared antibiotic-loaded bone cement and infection risk following cemented primary total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Nov 18;102(22):1930-8.
21. Sanz-Ruiz P, Matas-Diez JA, Villanueva-Martínez M, Santos-Vaquinha Blanco AD, Vaquero J. Is dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement more effective and cost-efficient than a single antibiotic-loaded bone cement to reduce the risk of prosthetic joint infection in aseptic revision knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2020 Dec;35(12):3724-9. Epub 2020 Jun 20.
22. Zastrow RK, Huang HH, Galatz LM, Saunders-Hao P, Poeran J, Moucha CS. Characteristics of antibiotic prophylaxis and risk of surgical site infections in primary total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Sep;35(9):2581-9. Epub 2020 Apr 18.
23. Elkins JM, Dennis DA, Kleeman-Forsthuber L, Yang CC, Miner TM, Jennings JM. Cutibacterium colonization of the anterior and lateral thigh. Bone Joint J. 2020 Jul;102-B(7_Supple_B):52-6.
24. Scholten R, Hannink G, Willemsen K, Mascini EM, Somford MP, Schreurs BW, van Susante JLC. Preoperative Staphylococcus aureus screening and eradication. Bone Joint J. 2020 Oct;102-B(10):1341-8.
25. Calkins TE, Culvern C, Nam D, Gerlinger TL, Levine BR, Sporer SM, Della Valle CJ. Dilute Betadine lavage reduces the risk of acute postoperative periprosthetic joint infection in aseptic revision total knee and hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Feb;35(2):538-543.e1. Epub 2019 Sep 12.
26. Kim CH, Kim H, Lee SJ, Yoon JY, Moon JK, Lee S, Yoon PW. The effect of povidone-iodine lavage in preventing infection after total hip and knee arthroplasties: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Aug;35(8):2267-73. Epub 2020 Mar 7.
27. Driesman A, Shen M, Feng JE, Waren D, Slover J, Bosco J, Schwarzkopf R. Perioperative chlorhexidine gluconate wash during joint arthroplasty has equivalent periprosthetic joint infection rates in comparison to Betadine wash. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Mar;35(3):845-8. Epub 2019 Oct 9.
28. Iorio R, Yu S, Anoushiravani AA, Riesgo AM, Park B, Vigdorchik J, Slover J, Long WJ, Schwarzkopf R. Vancomycin powder and dilute povidone-iodine lavage for infection prophylaxis in high-risk total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jul;35(7):1933-6. Epub 2020 Mar 2.
29. Nazal MR, Galloway JL, Dhaliwal KK, Nishiyama SK, Shields JS. Dilute povidone-iodine solution prevents intraoperative contamination of sterile water basins during total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jan;35(1):241-6. Epub 2019 Aug 19.
30. Scheidt S, Walter S, Randau TM, Köpf US, Jordan MC, Hischebeth GTR. The influence of iodine-impregnated incision drapes on the bacterial contamination of scalpel blades in joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Sep;35(9):2595-600. Epub 2020 May 13.
31. Yazdi H, Klement MR, Hammad M, Inoue D, Xu C, Goswami K, Parvizi J. Tranexamic acid is associated with reduced periprosthetic joint infection after primary total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Mar;35(3):840-4. Epub 2019 Oct 22.
32. Klement MR, Padua FG, Li WT, Detweiler M, Parvizi J. Tranexamic acid reduces the rate of periprosthetic joint infection after aseptic revision arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Aug 5;102(15):1344-50.
33. Garbarino LJ, Gold PA, Anis HK, Sodhi N, Danoff JR, Boraiah S, Rasquinha VJ, Mont MA. Does intermittent catheterization compared to indwelling catheterization decrease the risk of periprosthetic joint infection following total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jun;35(6S):S308-12. Epub 2020 Feb 28.
34. Roecker Z, Quinlan ND, Browne JA, Werner BC. Risk of periprosthetic infection following intra-articular corticosteroid injections after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Apr;35(4):1090-4. Epub 2019 Nov 16.
35. Lovro LR, Kang HP, Bolia IK, Homere A, Weber AE, Heckmann N. Knee arthroscopy after total knee arthroplasty: not a benign procedure. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Dec;35(12):3575-80. Epub 2020 Jul 2.
36. Goldman AH, Osmon DR, Hanssen AD, Pagnano MW, Berry DJ, Abdel MP. The Lawrence D. Dorr Surgical Techniques & Technologies Award: aseptic reoperations within one year of primary total hip arthroplasty markedly increase the risk of later periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jun;35(6S):S10-4. Epub 2020 Feb 28.
37. Wang SH, Xu C, Tan TL, Goswami K, Cooper AM, Parvizi J. Increased postoperative glucose variability is associated with adverse outcome following two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2020 May;35(5):1368-73. Epub 2019 Dec 6.
38. Abdelaziz H, Rademacher K, Suero EM, Gehrke T, Lausmann C, Salber J, Citak M. The 2018 International Consensus Meeting minor criteria for chronic hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection: validation from a single center. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Aug;35(8):2200-3. Epub 2020 Mar 13.
39. Jiang Q, Xu C, Chai W, Zhou YG, Fu J, Chen JY. The 2018 new definition of periprosthetic joint infection is valuable for diagnosis of persistent infection at reimplantation in patients without synovial fluid. J Arthroplasty. 2021 Jan;36(1):279-85. Epub 2020 Jul 25.
40. Sukhonthamarn K, Tan TL, Xu C, Kuo FC, Lee MS, Citak M, Gehrke T, Goswami K, Parvizi J. Determining diagnostic thresholds for acute postoperative periprosthetic joint infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Dec 2;102(23):2043-8.
41. Padua FG, Yayac M, Parvizi J. Variation in inflammatory biomarkers among demographic groups significantly affects their accuracy in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2021 Apr;36(4):1420-8. Epub 2020 Oct 24.
42. Pannu TS, Villa JM, Patel PD, Riesgo AM, Barsoum WK, Higuera CA. The utility of serum D-dimer for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection in revision total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jun;35(6):1692-5. Epub 2020 Jan 23.
43. Qin L, Li F, Gong X, Wang J, Huang W, Hu N. Combined measurement of D-dimer and C-reactive protein levels: highly accurate for diagnosing chronic periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jan;35(1):229-34. Epub 2019 Aug 9.
44. Bin G, Xinxin Y, Fan L, Shenghong W, Yayi X. Serum fibrinogen test performs well for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Sep;35(9):2607-12. Epub 2020 Apr 30.
45. Wu H, Meng Z, Pan L, Liu H, Yang X, Yongping C. Plasma fibrinogen performs better than plasma D-dimer and fibrin degradation product in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection and determination of reimplantation timing. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Aug;35(8):2230-6. Epub 2020 Apr 5.
46. Wang Y, Li Y, Qiao L, Sun S. Comparison of a comprehensive set of fibrinolytic markers with C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Sep;35(9):2613-8. Epub 2020 May 7.
47. Xu H, Xie J, Yang J, Chen G, Huang Q, Pei F. Plasma fibrinogen and platelet count are referable tools for diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection: a single-center retrospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty. 2020 May;35(5):1361-7. Epub 2019 Dec 14.
48. Qu PF, Li R, Xu C, Chai W, Li H, Fu J, Chen JY. A clinical pilot study to evaluate CD64 expression on blood monocytes as an indicator of periprosthetic joint infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Sep 2;102(17):e99.
49. Busch A, Jäger M, Engler H, Haversath M, Bielefeld C, Landgraeber S, Wegner A. Is procalcitonin (PCT) a reliable biomarker for preoperative diagnosing of low grade periprosthetic joint infection? A prospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Apr 20;21(1):257.
50. Deirmengian C, Madigan J, Kallur Mallikarjuna S, Conway J, Higuera C, Patel R. Validation of the alpha defensin lateral flow test for periprosthetic joint infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021 Jan 20;103(2):115-22.
51. Salari P, Grassi M, Cinti B, Onori N, Gigante A. Synovial fluid calprotectin for the preoperative diagnosis of chronic periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Feb;35(2):534-7. Epub 2019 Aug 29.
52. Heckmann ND, Nahhas CR, Yang J, Della Valle CJ, Yi PH, Culvern CN, Gerlinger TL, Nam D. Saline lavage after a “dry tap”. Bone Joint J. 2020 Jun;102-B(6_Supple_A):138-44.
53. Rockov ZA, Clarke HD, Grys TE, Chang YH, Schwartz AJ. Is there an optimal cutoff for aspiration fluid volume in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection? J Arthroplasty. 2020 Aug;35(8):2217-22. Epub 2020 Mar 14.
54. Morgenstern C, Renz N, Cabric S, Maiolo E, Perka C, Trampuz A. Thermogenic diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection by microcalorimetry of synovial fluid. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Jun 3;21(1):345.
55. Shohat N, Goswami K, Tan TL, Yayac M, Soriano A, Sousa R, Wouthuyzen-Bakker M, Parvizi J; ESCMID Study Group of Implant Associated Infections (ESGIAI) and the Northern Infection Network of Joint Arthroplasty (NINJA). 2020 Frank Stinchfield Award: identifying who will fail following irrigation and debridement for prosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J. 2020 Jul;102-B(7_Supple_B):11-9.
56. Wouthuyzen-Bakker M, Löwik CAM, Ploegmakers JJW, Knobben BAS, Dijkstra B, de Vries AJ, Mithoe G, Kampinga G, Zijlstra WP, Jutte PC; Northern Infection Network Joint Arthroplasty (NINJA). A second surgical debridement for acute periprosthetic joint infections should not be discarded. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Aug;35(8):2204-9. Epub 2020 Feb 26.
57. Baker JF, Dilworth B, Bhimani SJ, Ong KL, Lau EC, Smith LS, Malkani AL. Risk of reinfection after irrigation and debridement of acute periprosthetic joint infection following TKA. J Knee Surg. 2020 Jul;33(7):623-8. Epub 2019 Mar 25.
58. Boyle KK, Kapadia M, Landy DC, Henry MW, Miller AO, Westrich GH. Utilization of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention for infection after total joint arthroplasty over a decade in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Aug;35(8):2210-6. Epub 2020 Mar 21.
59. Katakam A, Melnic CM, Bedair HS. Dual surgical setup may improve infection control rate of debridement and implant retention procedures for periprosthetic infections of the hip and knee. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Sep;35(9):2590-4. Epub 2020 Apr 27.
60. Kavolus JJ, Cunningham DJ, Eftekhary N, Ting NT, Griffin WL, Fehring TK. Fate of two-stage reimplantation after failed irrigation and debridement for periprosthetic hip infection. Arthroplast Today. 2020 Sep 6;6(4):955-958.e1.
61. Corona PS, Vicente M, Carrera L, Rodríguez-Pardo D, Corró S. Current actual success rate of the two-stage exchange arthroplasty strategy in chronic hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J. 2020 Dec;102-B(12):1682-8.
62. Barton CB, Wang DL, An Q, Brown TS, Callaghan JJ, Otero JE. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection following total hip or knee arthroplasty is associated with high attrition rate and mortality. J Arthroplasty. 2020 May;35(5):1384-9. Epub 2019 Dec 13.
63. Wichern EM, Zielinski MR, Ziemba-Davis M, Meneghini RM. Contemporary 2-stage treatment of periprosthetic hip infection with evidence-based standardized protocols yields excellent results: caveats and recommendations. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Oct;35(10):2983-95. Epub 2020 May 21.
64. Hartzler MA, Li K, Geary MB, Odum SM, Springer BD. Complications in the treatment of prosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J. 2020 Jun;102-B(6_Supple_A):145-50.
65. Yang J, Parvizi J, Hansen EN, Culvern CN, Segreti JC, Tan T, Hartman CW, Sporer SM, Della Valle CJ; Knee Society Research Group. 2020 Mark Coventry Award: microorganism-directed oral antibiotics reduce the rate of failure due to further infection after two-stage revision hip or knee arthroplasty for chronic infection: a multicentre randomized controlled trial at a minimum of two years. Bone Joint J. 2020 Jun;102-B(6_Supple_A):3-9.
66. Zamora T, Garbuz DS, Greidanus NV, Masri BA. An articulated spacer made of new primary implants in two-stage exchange for infected total knee arthroplasty may provide durable results. Bone Joint J. 2020 Jul;102-B(7):852-60.
67. Nahhas CR, Chalmers PN, Parvizi J, Sporer SM, Berend KR, Moric M, Chen AF, Austin MS, Deirmengian GK, Morris MJ, Della Valle CJ. A randomized trial of static and articulating spacers for the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 May 6;102(9):778-87.
68. Abdelaziz H, Biewald P, Anastasiadis Z, Haasper C, Gehrke T, Hawi N, Citak M. Midterm results after tantalum cones in 1-stage knee exchange for periprosthetic joint infection: a single-center study. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Apr;35(4):1084-9. Epub 2019 Nov 15.
69. Cichos KH, Spitler CA, Quade JH, Ponce BA, McGwin G Jr, Ghanem ES. Intrawound antibiotic powder in acetabular fracture open reduction internal fixation does not reduce surgical site infections. J Orthop Trauma. 2021 Apr 1;35(4):198-204.
70. Xu X, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Chen C, Yu H, Xue E. Role of intra-wound powdered vancomycin in primary total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2020 May;106(3):417-20. Epub 2020 Apr 3.
71. Matziolis G, Brodt S, Böhle S, Kirschberg J, Jacob B, Röhner E. Intraarticular vancomycin powder is effective in preventing infections following total hip and knee arthroplasty. Sci Rep. 2020 Aug 3;10(1):13053.
72. Fernicola SD, Elsenbeck MJ, Grimm PD, Pisano AJ, Wagner SC. Intrasite antibiotic powder for the prevention of surgical site infection in extremity surgery: a systematic review. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020 Jan 1;28(1):37-43.
73. Shah NB, Hersh BL, Kreger A, Sayeed A, Bullock AG, Rothenberger SD, Klatt B, Hamlin B, Urish KL. Benefits and adverse events associated with extended antibiotic use in total knee arthroplasty periprosthetic joint infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Feb 3;70(4):559-65.
74. Escudero-Sanchez R, Senneville E, Digumber M, Soriano A, Del Toro MD, Bahamonde A, Del Pozo JL, Guio L, Murillo O, Rico A, García-País MJ, Rodríguez-Pardo D, Iribarren JA, Fernández M, Benito N, Fresco G, Muriel A, Ariza J, Cobo J. Suppressive antibiotic therapy in prosthetic joint infections: a multicentre cohort study. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Apr;26(4):499-505. Epub 2019 Sep 17.
75. Sandiford NA, Hutt JR, Kendoff DO, Mitchell PA, Citak M, Granger L. Prolonged suppressive antibiotic therapy is successful in the management of prosthetic joint infection. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2020 Feb;30(2):313-21. Epub 2019 Oct 1.
76. Karlsen ØE, Borgen P, Bragnes B, Figved W, Grøgaard B, Rydinge J, Sandberg L, Snorrason F, Wangen H, Witsøe E, Westberg M. Rifampin combination therapy in staphylococcal prosthetic joint infections: a randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Aug 28;15(1):365.
77. Slullitel PA, Oñativia JI, Piuzzi NS, Higuera-Rueda C, Parvizi J, Buttaro MA. Is there a role for antibiotic prophylaxis prior to dental procedures in patients with total joint arthroplasty? A systematic review of the literature. J Bone Jt Infect. 2020 Jan 1;5(1):7-15.
78. Goff DA, Mangino JE, Glassman AH, Goff D, Larsen P, Scheetz R. Review of guidelines for dental antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of endocarditis and prosthetic joint infections and need for dental stewardship. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 11;71(2):455-62.
79. Myers TG, Lipof JS, Chen AF, Ricciardi BF. Antibiotic stewardship for total joint arthroplasty in 2020. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020 Sep 15;28(18):e793-802.
80. Sosa BR, Niu Y, Turajane K, Staats K, Suhardi V, Carli A, Fischetti V, Bostrom M, Yang X. 2020 John Charnley Award: the antimicrobial potential of bacteriophage-derived lysin in a murine debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention model of prosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J. 2020 Jul;102-B(7_Supple_B):3-10.
81. Doub JB, Ng VY, Johnson AJ, Slomka M, Fackler J, Horne B, Brownstein MJ, Henry M, Malagon F, Biswas B. Salvage bacteriophage therapy for a chronic MRSA prosthetic joint infection. Antibiotics (Basel). 2020 May 9;9(5):241.
82. Ferry T, Kolenda C, Batailler C, Gustave CA, Lustig S, Malatray M, Fevre C, Josse J, Petitjean C, Chidiac C, Leboucher G, Laurent F. Phage therapy as adjuvant to conservative surgery and antibiotics to salvage patients with relapsing S. aureus prosthetic knee infection. Front Med (Lausanne). 2020 Nov 16;7:570572.
83. Zhou J, Wang R, Huo X, Xiong W, Kang L, Xue Y. Incidence of surgical site infection after spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).) 2020 Feb 1;45(3):208-16.
84. Phillips BT, Sheldon ES, Orhurhu V, Ravinsky RA, Freiser ME, Asgarzadeh M, Viswanath O, Kaye AD, Roguski M. Preoperative versus extended postoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis of surgical site infection during spinal surgery: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Adv Ther. 2020 Jun;37(6):2710-33. Epub 2020 May 15.
85. Ogihara S, Yamazaki T, Shiibashi M, Maruyama T, Chikuda H, Miyoshi K, Inanami H, Oshima Y, Azuma S, Kawamura N, Yamakawa K, Hara N, Morii J, Okazaki R, Takeshita Y, Sato K, Tanaka S, Saita K. Risk factor analysis of deep surgical site infection after posterior instrumented fusion surgery for spinal trauma: a multicenter observational study. World Neurosurg. 2020 Feb;134:e524-9. Epub 2019 Nov 11.
86. Yoon JS, King JT Jr. Preoperative urinary tract infection increases postoperative morbidity in spine patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).) 2020 Jun 1;45(11):747-54.
87. Bürger J, Palmowski Y, Strube P, Perka C, Putzier M, Pumberger M. Low sensitivity of histopathological examination of peri-implant tissue samples in diagnosing postoperative spinal implant infection. Bone Joint J. 2020 Jul;102-B(7):899-903.
88. Carlson BC, Hines JT, Robinson WA, Sebastian AS, Greenwood-Quaintance KE, Patel R, Huddleston PM. Implant sonication versus tissue culture for the diagnosis of spinal implant infection. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).) 2020 May 1;45(9):E525-32.
89. Costa ML, Achten J, Knight R, Bruce J, Dutton SJ, Madan J, Dritsaki M, Parsons N, Fernandez M, Grant R, Nanchahal J; WHIST Trial Collaborators. Effect of incisional negative pressure wound therapy vs standard wound dressing on deep surgical site infection after surgery for lower limb fractures associated with major trauma: the WHIST randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020 Feb 11;323(6):519-26.
90. Tahir M, Chaudhry EA, Zimri FK, Ahmed N, Shaikh SA, Khan S, Choudry UK, Aziz A, Jamali AR. Negative pressure wound therapy versus conventional dressing for open fractures in lower extremity trauma. Bone Joint J. 2020 Jul;102-B(7):912-7.
91. Grant-Freemantle MC, Ryan ÉJ, Flynn SO, Moloney DP, Kelly MA, Coveney EI, O’Daly BJ, Quinlan JF. The effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy versus conventional dressing in the treatment of open fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2020 May;34(5):223-30.
92. Declercq P, Zalavras C, Nijssen A, Mertens B, Mesure J, Quintens J, De Ridder T, Belmans A, Nijs S, Spriet I, Metsemakers WJ. Impact of duration of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis on development of fracture-related infection in open fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021 Feb;141(2):235-43. Epub 2020 May 14.
93. Shawar SK, Ly TV, Li J, Shirk MB, Reichert EM. Piperacillin/tazobactam versus tobramycin-based antibiotic prophylaxis for type III open fractures. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2020 Feb;21(1):23-8. Epub 2019 Aug 5.

Supplemental Digital Content

Copyright © 2021 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated