Not so Fast: Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis Does Not Reduce 90-Day Infection Rate Following Joint Arthroplasty

• Published in: The Journal of arthroplasty 2024-09, Vol.39 (9), p.S122-S128
• Main Authors: Flynn, Jade B., Yokhana, Sanar S., Wilson, Jacob M., Schultz, Jacob D., Hymel, Alicia M., Martin, John R.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Administration, Oral; Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration & dosage; Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods; antibiotics; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - adverse effects; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects; Female; Humans; infection; infection prevention; Male; Middle Aged; periprosthetic joint infection; Prosthesis-Related Infections - etiology; Prosthesis-Related Infections - prevention & control; Retrospective Studies; total hip arthroplasty
• ISSN: 0883-5403; 1532-8406; 1532-8406
• DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2024.04.064

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication following both total hip (THA) and knee (TKA) arthroplasty. Extended oral antibiotic (EOA) prophylaxis has been reported to reduce PJI following TJA in high-risk patients. The purpose of this study was to determine if EOA reduces PJI in all-comers and high-risk THA and TKA populations. This is a retrospective cohort study, including 4,576 patients undergoing primary THA or TKA at a single institution from 2018 to 2022. Beginning in 2020, EOA prophylaxis was administered for 10 days following THA or TKA at our institution. Patients were separated into 2 cohorts (1,769 EOA, 2,807 no EOA) based on whether they received postoperative EOA. The 90-day and 1-year outcomes, with a focus on PJI, were then compared between groups. A subgroup analysis of high-risk patients was also performed. There was no difference in 90-day PJI rates between cohorts (EOA 1 versus no EOA 0.8%; P = .6). The difference in the rate of PJI remained insignificant at 1 year (EOA 1 versus no EOA 1%; P = .9). Similarly, our subgroup analysis of high-risk patients demonstrated no difference in postoperative PJI between EOA (n = 254) and no EOA (n = 396) (0.8 versus 2.3%, respectively; P = .2). Reassuringly, we also found no differences in the incidence of Clostridium difficile infection (EOA 0.1 versus no EOA 0.1%; P > .9) or in antibiotic resistance among those who developed PJI within 90 days (EOA 59 versus no EOA 83%; P = .2). With the numbers available for analysis, EOA prophylaxis was not associated with PJI risk reduction following primary TJA when universally deployed. Furthermore, among high-risk patients, there was no statistically significant difference. While we did not identify increased antibiotic resistance or Clostridium difficile infection, we cannot recommend wide-spread adoption of EOA prophylaxis, and clarification regarding the role of EOA, even in high-risk patients, is needed.