Implementation of a multidisciplinary infections conference affects the treatment plan in prosthetic joint infections of the hip: a retrospective study
- 56 Downloads
Establishing a systematic multidisciplinary approach in the treatment of prosthetic joint infections (PJI) of the hip and analyzing its effect on clinical decision-making.
Patients and methods
Forty-six patients diagnosed with PJI of the hip were included in the retrospective study. The treatment plan was either established by a single-discipline approach (n = 20) or by a weekly multidisciplinary infections conference (n = 26) consisting of at least an orthopedic surgeon, microbiologist and pathologist. Recorded data included the length of hospital stay, number and type of surgeries, medical complications, recovered organisms as well as the number of applied antibiotics.
Patients discussed in the multidisciplinary infections conference showed a significantly shorter in-hospital stay (29 vs 62 days; p < 0.05), a significant reduction in surgeries (1.8 vs 5.1; p < 0.05) and a smaller number of antibiotics required (2.8 vs 4.2; p < 0.05). No significant difference could be found comparing inpatient complications between the two groups. Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most frequently recovered organisms in both patient groups.
This study demonstrates the successful implementation of a weekly infections conference as an instrument to introduce a multidisciplinary approach to PJI of the hip. Implementation of these conferences significantly improves the treatment plan compared to a single-discipline approach, which we therefore highly recommend for other institutions. Multidiscipline may even affect clinical outcome which needs to be further investigated.
KeywordsPeriprosthetic joint infection Hip Multidisciplinary conference Arthroplasty PJI
This study was conducted at the Department of Trauma-, Hand-, and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf. No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. This study was supported by the Damp Foundation (Project 2013-19).
There is no funding source.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
D. Ntalos, J. Berger-Groch, H. Rohde, L. G. Grossterlinden, A. Both, A. Luebke, M. J. Hartel and T. O. Klatte declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human/animal rights statement
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 15.Moore AJ, Whitehouse MR, Gooberman-Hill R et al (2017) A UK national survey of care pathways and support offered to patients receiving revision surgery for prosthetic joint infection in the highest volume NHS orthopaedic centres. Musculoskelet Care 15:379–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.1186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg 240:205–213. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Hernández-Vaquero D, Fernández-Fairen M, Torres A et al (2013) Treatment of periprosthetic infections: an economic analysis. Sci World J 2013:. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/821650