Regional Intraosseous Administration of Prophylactic Antibiotics is More Effective Than Systemic Administration in a Mouse Model of TKA

Background In human TKA studies, intraosseous regional administration (IORA) of prophylactic antibiotics achieves local tissue antibiotic concentrations 10 times greater than systemic administration. However, it is unclear if such high concentrations provide more effective prophylaxis. Questions/pur...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical orthopaedics and related research 2015-11, Vol.473 (11), p.3573-3584
Hauptverfasser: Young, Simon W., Roberts, Tim, Johnson, Sarah, Dalton, James P., Coleman, Brendan, Wiles, Siouxsie
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 3584
container_issue 11
container_start_page 3573
container_title Clinical orthopaedics and related research
container_volume 473
creator Young, Simon W.
Roberts, Tim
Johnson, Sarah
Dalton, James P.
Coleman, Brendan
Wiles, Siouxsie
description Background In human TKA studies, intraosseous regional administration (IORA) of prophylactic antibiotics achieves local tissue antibiotic concentrations 10 times greater than systemic administration. However, it is unclear if such high concentrations provide more effective prophylaxis. Questions/purposes We asked: (1) What prophylaxis dosage and route (intravenous [IV] versus IORA of prophylactic antibiotics) produce less in vivo bacterial burden compared with no-antibiotic controls? (2) Compared with controls, what prophylaxis dosage and route yield fewer colony-forming units (CFUs) in euthanized animals in a model of TKA? (3) Is prophylactic IORA of antibiotics more effective than same-dose IV antibiotic administration in reducing CFUs? Methods Mice (six to nine per group) were block randomized to one of six prophylaxis regimens: control, systemic cefazolin (C100 IV ), IORA of cefazolin (C100 IORA ), systemic vancomycin (V110 IV ), low-dose systemic vancomycin (V25 IV ), and low-dose IORA of vancomycin (V25 IORA ). Surgery involved placement of an intraarticular knee prosthesis, followed by an inoculum of bioluminescent Staphylococcus aureus strain Xen36. Biophotonic imaging assessed in vivo bacterial loads, and after 4 days bacterial load was quantified using culture-based techniques. Comparisons were made for each prophylactic regimen to controls and between same-dose IV and IORA of prophylactic antibiotic regimens. Results Mice treated with systemic high-dose vancomycin, IORA of vancomycin, or IORA of cefazolin had lower in vivo Staphylococcus aureus burdens (median area under curve, Control: 5.0 × 10 6 ; V110 IV : 1.5 × 10 6 , difference of medians 3.5 × 10 6 , p = 0.003; V25 IV : 1.94 × 10 6 , difference 3.07 × 10 6 , p = 0.49; V25 IORA : 1.51 × 10 6 , difference 3.5 × 10 6 , p = 0.0011; C100 IORA : 1.55 × 10 6 , difference 3.46 × 10 6 , p = 0.0016; C100 IV : 2.35 × 10 6 , difference 2.66 × 10 6 , p = 0.23.) Similar findings were seen with culture-based techniques on recovered implants. IORA of prophylactic antibiotics was more effective than same-dose IV administration in reducing bacterial load on recovered implants (median CFUs < 7.0 × 10 0 vs 2.83 × 10 2 , p = 0.0183). Conclusions IORA of prophylactic cefazolin and vancomycin was more effective than the same dose of antibiotic given systemically. The effectiveness of vancomycin in particular was enhanced by IORA of prophylactic antibiotics despite using a lower dose. Clinical relevance Our study
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11999-015-4464-x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4586203</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3820634621</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c639t-d7363964425479b3fdbd7a73e13c9538acf92b4e13492cba069f730de99123e63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNUsFu1DAQtRAVXQofwAVZ4sIlYI8dO74graoCFa2KYJG4WY7j7LpK4q2dVN0v4Ldx2FK1lZC4eDx-b549nofQK0reUULk-0SpUqogtCw4F7y4eYIWtISqoJTBU7QghKhCAf15iJ6ndJlTxkt4hg5BAHBQdIF-fXNrHwbT4dNhjCak5MKU8LLp_eBTPhkzikOLv8aw3ew6Y0dv8XIYfe1D3ibsEz4P0eGTtnUZvHZ4tTED_r5Lo-tn7kMpP2CTC6bk8tq4btZefVm-QAet6ZJ7eRuP0I-PJ6vjz8XZxafT4-VZYQVTY9FIlqPgHEouVc3apm6kkcxRZlXJKmNbBTXPKVdga0OEaiUjjVOKAnOCHaEPe93tVPeusW7uutPb6HsTdzoYrx8ig9_odbjWvKwEEJYF3t4KxHA1uTTq3ifrus4M889pKkEKxbiA_6DSisiKyipT3zyiXoYp5rH8YUkAWvJZkO5ZNuZBRdfevZsSPTtC7x2hsyP07Ah9k2te32_4ruKvBTIB9oSUoWHt4r2r_6n6G7Wrw0o</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1717221542</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Regional Intraosseous Administration of Prophylactic Antibiotics is More Effective Than Systemic Administration in a Mouse Model of TKA</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Young, Simon W. ; Roberts, Tim ; Johnson, Sarah ; Dalton, James P. ; Coleman, Brendan ; Wiles, Siouxsie</creator><creatorcontrib>Young, Simon W. ; Roberts, Tim ; Johnson, Sarah ; Dalton, James P. ; Coleman, Brendan ; Wiles, Siouxsie</creatorcontrib><description>Background In human TKA studies, intraosseous regional administration (IORA) of prophylactic antibiotics achieves local tissue antibiotic concentrations 10 times greater than systemic administration. However, it is unclear if such high concentrations provide more effective prophylaxis. Questions/purposes We asked: (1) What prophylaxis dosage and route (intravenous [IV] versus IORA of prophylactic antibiotics) produce less in vivo bacterial burden compared with no-antibiotic controls? (2) Compared with controls, what prophylaxis dosage and route yield fewer colony-forming units (CFUs) in euthanized animals in a model of TKA? (3) Is prophylactic IORA of antibiotics more effective than same-dose IV antibiotic administration in reducing CFUs? Methods Mice (six to nine per group) were block randomized to one of six prophylaxis regimens: control, systemic cefazolin (C100 IV ), IORA of cefazolin (C100 IORA ), systemic vancomycin (V110 IV ), low-dose systemic vancomycin (V25 IV ), and low-dose IORA of vancomycin (V25 IORA ). Surgery involved placement of an intraarticular knee prosthesis, followed by an inoculum of bioluminescent Staphylococcus aureus strain Xen36. Biophotonic imaging assessed in vivo bacterial loads, and after 4 days bacterial load was quantified using culture-based techniques. Comparisons were made for each prophylactic regimen to controls and between same-dose IV and IORA of prophylactic antibiotic regimens. Results Mice treated with systemic high-dose vancomycin, IORA of vancomycin, or IORA of cefazolin had lower in vivo Staphylococcus aureus burdens (median area under curve, Control: 5.0 × 10 6 ; V110 IV : 1.5 × 10 6 , difference of medians 3.5 × 10 6 , p = 0.003; V25 IV : 1.94 × 10 6 , difference 3.07 × 10 6 , p = 0.49; V25 IORA : 1.51 × 10 6 , difference 3.5 × 10 6 , p = 0.0011; C100 IORA : 1.55 × 10 6 , difference 3.46 × 10 6 , p = 0.0016; C100 IV : 2.35 × 10 6 , difference 2.66 × 10 6 , p = 0.23.) Similar findings were seen with culture-based techniques on recovered implants. IORA of prophylactic antibiotics was more effective than same-dose IV administration in reducing bacterial load on recovered implants (median CFUs &lt; 7.0 × 10 0 vs 2.83 × 10 2 , p = 0.0183). Conclusions IORA of prophylactic cefazolin and vancomycin was more effective than the same dose of antibiotic given systemically. The effectiveness of vancomycin in particular was enhanced by IORA of prophylactic antibiotics despite using a lower dose. Clinical relevance Our study supports previous studies of IORA of prophylactic antibiotics in humans and suggests this novel form of administration has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of prophylaxis in TKA. Because of concerns regarding antibiotic stewardship, IORA of prophylactic vancomycin may be more appropriately restricted to patients having TKA who are at greater risk of infection, and clinical trials are in progress.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0009-921X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1528-1132</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11999-015-4464-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26224291</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject><![CDATA[Animals ; Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration & dosage ; Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - instrumentation ; Bacterial Load ; Basic Research ; Cefazolin - administration & dosage ; Colony Count, Microbial ; Conservative Orthopedics ; Female ; Infection ; Injections, Intravenous ; Knee Prosthesis - adverse effects ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Mice ; Models, Animal ; Orthopedics ; Prosthesis-Related Infections - diagnosis ; Prosthesis-Related Infections - microbiology ; Prosthesis-Related Infections - prevention & control ; Sports Medicine ; Staphylococcal Infections - diagnosis ; Staphylococcal Infections - microbiology ; Staphylococcal Infections - prevention & control ; Staphylococcus aureus ; Surgery ; Surgical Orthopedics ; Time Factors ; Vancomycin - administration & dosage]]></subject><ispartof>Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2015-11, Vol.473 (11), p.3573-3584</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2015</rights><rights>The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c639t-d7363964425479b3fdbd7a73e13c9538acf92b4e13492cba069f730de99123e63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c639t-d7363964425479b3fdbd7a73e13c9538acf92b4e13492cba069f730de99123e63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586203/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586203/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26224291$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Young, Simon W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dalton, James P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coleman, Brendan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiles, Siouxsie</creatorcontrib><title>Regional Intraosseous Administration of Prophylactic Antibiotics is More Effective Than Systemic Administration in a Mouse Model of TKA</title><title>Clinical orthopaedics and related research</title><addtitle>Clin Orthop Relat Res</addtitle><addtitle>Clin Orthop Relat Res</addtitle><description>Background In human TKA studies, intraosseous regional administration (IORA) of prophylactic antibiotics achieves local tissue antibiotic concentrations 10 times greater than systemic administration. However, it is unclear if such high concentrations provide more effective prophylaxis. Questions/purposes We asked: (1) What prophylaxis dosage and route (intravenous [IV] versus IORA of prophylactic antibiotics) produce less in vivo bacterial burden compared with no-antibiotic controls? (2) Compared with controls, what prophylaxis dosage and route yield fewer colony-forming units (CFUs) in euthanized animals in a model of TKA? (3) Is prophylactic IORA of antibiotics more effective than same-dose IV antibiotic administration in reducing CFUs? Methods Mice (six to nine per group) were block randomized to one of six prophylaxis regimens: control, systemic cefazolin (C100 IV ), IORA of cefazolin (C100 IORA ), systemic vancomycin (V110 IV ), low-dose systemic vancomycin (V25 IV ), and low-dose IORA of vancomycin (V25 IORA ). Surgery involved placement of an intraarticular knee prosthesis, followed by an inoculum of bioluminescent Staphylococcus aureus strain Xen36. Biophotonic imaging assessed in vivo bacterial loads, and after 4 days bacterial load was quantified using culture-based techniques. Comparisons were made for each prophylactic regimen to controls and between same-dose IV and IORA of prophylactic antibiotic regimens. Results Mice treated with systemic high-dose vancomycin, IORA of vancomycin, or IORA of cefazolin had lower in vivo Staphylococcus aureus burdens (median area under curve, Control: 5.0 × 10 6 ; V110 IV : 1.5 × 10 6 , difference of medians 3.5 × 10 6 , p = 0.003; V25 IV : 1.94 × 10 6 , difference 3.07 × 10 6 , p = 0.49; V25 IORA : 1.51 × 10 6 , difference 3.5 × 10 6 , p = 0.0011; C100 IORA : 1.55 × 10 6 , difference 3.46 × 10 6 , p = 0.0016; C100 IV : 2.35 × 10 6 , difference 2.66 × 10 6 , p = 0.23.) Similar findings were seen with culture-based techniques on recovered implants. IORA of prophylactic antibiotics was more effective than same-dose IV administration in reducing bacterial load on recovered implants (median CFUs &lt; 7.0 × 10 0 vs 2.83 × 10 2 , p = 0.0183). Conclusions IORA of prophylactic cefazolin and vancomycin was more effective than the same dose of antibiotic given systemically. The effectiveness of vancomycin in particular was enhanced by IORA of prophylactic antibiotics despite using a lower dose. Clinical relevance Our study supports previous studies of IORA of prophylactic antibiotics in humans and suggests this novel form of administration has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of prophylaxis in TKA. Because of concerns regarding antibiotic stewardship, IORA of prophylactic vancomycin may be more appropriately restricted to patients having TKA who are at greater risk of infection, and clinical trials are in progress.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - instrumentation</subject><subject>Bacterial Load</subject><subject>Basic Research</subject><subject>Cefazolin - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Colony Count, Microbial</subject><subject>Conservative Orthopedics</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Infection</subject><subject>Injections, Intravenous</subject><subject>Knee Prosthesis - adverse effects</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Mice</subject><subject>Models, Animal</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Prosthesis-Related Infections - diagnosis</subject><subject>Prosthesis-Related Infections - microbiology</subject><subject>Prosthesis-Related Infections - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Sports Medicine</subject><subject>Staphylococcal Infections - diagnosis</subject><subject>Staphylococcal Infections - microbiology</subject><subject>Staphylococcal Infections - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Staphylococcus aureus</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Orthopedics</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Vancomycin - administration &amp; dosage</subject><issn>0009-921X</issn><issn>1528-1132</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNUsFu1DAQtRAVXQofwAVZ4sIlYI8dO74graoCFa2KYJG4WY7j7LpK4q2dVN0v4Ldx2FK1lZC4eDx-b549nofQK0reUULk-0SpUqogtCw4F7y4eYIWtISqoJTBU7QghKhCAf15iJ6ndJlTxkt4hg5BAHBQdIF-fXNrHwbT4dNhjCak5MKU8LLp_eBTPhkzikOLv8aw3ew6Y0dv8XIYfe1D3ibsEz4P0eGTtnUZvHZ4tTED_r5Lo-tn7kMpP2CTC6bk8tq4btZefVm-QAet6ZJ7eRuP0I-PJ6vjz8XZxafT4-VZYQVTY9FIlqPgHEouVc3apm6kkcxRZlXJKmNbBTXPKVdga0OEaiUjjVOKAnOCHaEPe93tVPeusW7uutPb6HsTdzoYrx8ig9_odbjWvKwEEJYF3t4KxHA1uTTq3ifrus4M889pKkEKxbiA_6DSisiKyipT3zyiXoYp5rH8YUkAWvJZkO5ZNuZBRdfevZsSPTtC7x2hsyP07Ah9k2te32_4ruKvBTIB9oSUoWHt4r2r_6n6G7Wrw0o</recordid><startdate>20151101</startdate><enddate>20151101</enddate><creator>Young, Simon W.</creator><creator>Roberts, Tim</creator><creator>Johnson, Sarah</creator><creator>Dalton, James P.</creator><creator>Coleman, Brendan</creator><creator>Wiles, Siouxsie</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins Ovid Technologies</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151101</creationdate><title>Regional Intraosseous Administration of Prophylactic Antibiotics is More Effective Than Systemic Administration in a Mouse Model of TKA</title><author>Young, Simon W. ; Roberts, Tim ; Johnson, Sarah ; Dalton, James P. ; Coleman, Brendan ; Wiles, Siouxsie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c639t-d7363964425479b3fdbd7a73e13c9538acf92b4e13492cba069f730de99123e63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - instrumentation</topic><topic>Bacterial Load</topic><topic>Basic Research</topic><topic>Cefazolin - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Colony Count, Microbial</topic><topic>Conservative Orthopedics</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Infection</topic><topic>Injections, Intravenous</topic><topic>Knee Prosthesis - adverse effects</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Mice</topic><topic>Models, Animal</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Prosthesis-Related Infections - diagnosis</topic><topic>Prosthesis-Related Infections - microbiology</topic><topic>Prosthesis-Related Infections - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Sports Medicine</topic><topic>Staphylococcal Infections - diagnosis</topic><topic>Staphylococcal Infections - microbiology</topic><topic>Staphylococcal Infections - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Staphylococcus aureus</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Orthopedics</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Vancomycin - administration &amp; dosage</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Young, Simon W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dalton, James P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coleman, Brendan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiles, Siouxsie</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health &amp; Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Clinical orthopaedics and related research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Young, Simon W.</au><au>Roberts, Tim</au><au>Johnson, Sarah</au><au>Dalton, James P.</au><au>Coleman, Brendan</au><au>Wiles, Siouxsie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Regional Intraosseous Administration of Prophylactic Antibiotics is More Effective Than Systemic Administration in a Mouse Model of TKA</atitle><jtitle>Clinical orthopaedics and related research</jtitle><stitle>Clin Orthop Relat Res</stitle><addtitle>Clin Orthop Relat Res</addtitle><date>2015-11-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>473</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>3573</spage><epage>3584</epage><pages>3573-3584</pages><issn>0009-921X</issn><eissn>1528-1132</eissn><abstract>Background In human TKA studies, intraosseous regional administration (IORA) of prophylactic antibiotics achieves local tissue antibiotic concentrations 10 times greater than systemic administration. However, it is unclear if such high concentrations provide more effective prophylaxis. Questions/purposes We asked: (1) What prophylaxis dosage and route (intravenous [IV] versus IORA of prophylactic antibiotics) produce less in vivo bacterial burden compared with no-antibiotic controls? (2) Compared with controls, what prophylaxis dosage and route yield fewer colony-forming units (CFUs) in euthanized animals in a model of TKA? (3) Is prophylactic IORA of antibiotics more effective than same-dose IV antibiotic administration in reducing CFUs? Methods Mice (six to nine per group) were block randomized to one of six prophylaxis regimens: control, systemic cefazolin (C100 IV ), IORA of cefazolin (C100 IORA ), systemic vancomycin (V110 IV ), low-dose systemic vancomycin (V25 IV ), and low-dose IORA of vancomycin (V25 IORA ). Surgery involved placement of an intraarticular knee prosthesis, followed by an inoculum of bioluminescent Staphylococcus aureus strain Xen36. Biophotonic imaging assessed in vivo bacterial loads, and after 4 days bacterial load was quantified using culture-based techniques. Comparisons were made for each prophylactic regimen to controls and between same-dose IV and IORA of prophylactic antibiotic regimens. Results Mice treated with systemic high-dose vancomycin, IORA of vancomycin, or IORA of cefazolin had lower in vivo Staphylococcus aureus burdens (median area under curve, Control: 5.0 × 10 6 ; V110 IV : 1.5 × 10 6 , difference of medians 3.5 × 10 6 , p = 0.003; V25 IV : 1.94 × 10 6 , difference 3.07 × 10 6 , p = 0.49; V25 IORA : 1.51 × 10 6 , difference 3.5 × 10 6 , p = 0.0011; C100 IORA : 1.55 × 10 6 , difference 3.46 × 10 6 , p = 0.0016; C100 IV : 2.35 × 10 6 , difference 2.66 × 10 6 , p = 0.23.) Similar findings were seen with culture-based techniques on recovered implants. IORA of prophylactic antibiotics was more effective than same-dose IV administration in reducing bacterial load on recovered implants (median CFUs &lt; 7.0 × 10 0 vs 2.83 × 10 2 , p = 0.0183). Conclusions IORA of prophylactic cefazolin and vancomycin was more effective than the same dose of antibiotic given systemically. The effectiveness of vancomycin in particular was enhanced by IORA of prophylactic antibiotics despite using a lower dose. Clinical relevance Our study supports previous studies of IORA of prophylactic antibiotics in humans and suggests this novel form of administration has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of prophylaxis in TKA. Because of concerns regarding antibiotic stewardship, IORA of prophylactic vancomycin may be more appropriately restricted to patients having TKA who are at greater risk of infection, and clinical trials are in progress.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>26224291</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11999-015-4464-x</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0009-921X
ispartof Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2015-11, Vol.473 (11), p.3573-3584
issn 0009-921X
1528-1132
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4586203
source MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central
subjects Animals
Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration & dosage
Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - instrumentation
Bacterial Load
Basic Research
Cefazolin - administration & dosage
Colony Count, Microbial
Conservative Orthopedics
Female
Infection
Injections, Intravenous
Knee Prosthesis - adverse effects
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Mice
Models, Animal
Orthopedics
Prosthesis-Related Infections - diagnosis
Prosthesis-Related Infections - microbiology
Prosthesis-Related Infections - prevention & control
Sports Medicine
Staphylococcal Infections - diagnosis
Staphylococcal Infections - microbiology
Staphylococcal Infections - prevention & control
Staphylococcus aureus
Surgery
Surgical Orthopedics
Time Factors
Vancomycin - administration & dosage
title Regional Intraosseous Administration of Prophylactic Antibiotics is More Effective Than Systemic Administration in a Mouse Model of TKA
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-20T20%3A00%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Regional%20Intraosseous%20Administration%20of%20Prophylactic%20Antibiotics%20is%20More%20Effective%20Than%20Systemic%20Administration%20in%20a%20Mouse%20Model%20of%20TKA&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20orthopaedics%20and%20related%20research&rft.au=Young,%20Simon%20W.&rft.date=2015-11-01&rft.volume=473&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=3573&rft.epage=3584&rft.pages=3573-3584&rft.issn=0009-921X&rft.eissn=1528-1132&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11999-015-4464-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E3820634621%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1717221542&rft_id=info:pmid/26224291&rfr_iscdi=true