Oral Antibiotic Therapy

Abstract

Journal of Orthopaedic ResearchVolume 32, Issue S1 p. S152-S157 Research ArticleFree Access Oral Antibiotic Therapy First published: 24 January 2014 https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.22560Citations: 2AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Liaison Patrick O'Toole MD Leaders Douglas Osmon MD (US), Alex Soriano DO (International) Delegates Jan-Erik Berdal MD, Mathias Bostrum, Rafael Franco-Cendejas MD, DeYoung Huang PhD, Charles Nelson, F Nishisaka, Brian Roslund, Cassandra D Salgado, Robert Sawyer MD, John Segreti MD, Eric Senneville PhD, Xian Long Zhang Introduction This panel has reviewed the indication and duration of oral antibiotics for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the following situations: Acute (early or late) PJI treated with debridement without implant removal and exchange of the modular components, whenever modular components can be safely removed. In general, these infections do not require suppressive antibiotic therapy (SAT). Indications for the use of SAT include: Patients who refuse surgical treatment. Patients who cannot be surgically treated because of a high surgical risk due to comorbidities. Patients treated with inadequate surgery such as: (1) debridement without implant removal in late chronic PJI or (2) debridement without implant removal in acute (early or late) PJI but without exchanging the modular components. Patients who undergo optimal surgical treatment in acute PJI but receive suboptimal antibiotic treatment in the following situations: (1) not receiving rifampin in PJI due to Staphylococcus spp, (2) PJI due to methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), (3) not receiving a fluoroquinolone in gram-negative infections, and (4) fungal infections. Patients in whom it is suspected that the infection is not eradicated according to clinical, laboratory, or imaging data. Question 1: What are the appropriate oral antibiotic or antibiotic combinations following adequate surgical treatment for acute (early or late) PJI in which the implant has been retained? Consensus Regimens containing rifampicin, when feasible, should be used in gram-positive PJI and fluoroquinolones in gram-negative PJI. There is no consensus as to when rifampicin should be started. Delegate Vote Agree: 87%, Disagree: 7%, Abstain: 6% (Strong Consensus) Justification In acute PJI, open debridement and implant retention is associated with a wide variation in success rates. Once the decision to switch to oral therapy is made, a combination of antibiotics should be used. The reasons for this discrepancy include: (1) characteristics of the patients, (2) surgical technique including the exchange of modular polyethylene liner, and (3) the type of antibiotic or combination of antibiotics administered, especially within the first month after debridement.1, 2 There is concern with the use of rifampin during the first days of intravenous (IV) treatment in order to reduce the risk of selecting resistant mutants.3 Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococcus for the most part is best treated with combination therapy. In terms of antibiotic treatment, it is necessary to analyze the results according to the isolated microorganism. A review of the published literature where staphylococci were the main pathogen included 17 articles and 525 cases of PJI managed with open debridement and retention of the implant. The study showed a range of success from 14% to 83% with a mean rate of success of 48%4 and only 32% in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.5 A more recent review of the literature using Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention (DAIR), described a success rate below 50%.6 Of note, the majority of the articles included in these reviews did not use rifampin as part of the antibiotic treatment. In contrast, intravenous vancomycin or β-lactams for the first 4 weeks were the most common antibiotic therapies. In vitro data and experimental models on foreign-body infections have shown the poor activity of these antibiotics against bacterial biofilms and the importance of combining antibiotics, preferentially with rifampin.7-12 Zimmerli et al. performed a double-blind study and found that acute staphylococcal orthopaedic implant infections treated with an open debridement without removing the implant, followed by a combination of ciprofloxacin (750 mg/12 h) and rifampin (450 mg/12 h) administered for 3 months (for hip prosthesis and orthopaedic implant infections) or 6 months (for knee prosthesis infections), was more effective than ciprofloxacin alone (cure rates of 100% and of 53%, respectively, p < 0.05 after 35 months of follow-up). From 2005 up to now other case series have been published using antibiotic combinations with rifampin and support the effectiveness of this strategy, especially when PJI is due to methicillin- and fluoroquinolone-susceptible staphylococci (including Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci) and the oral therapy was made with rifampin combined with fluoroquinolones,2, 13-22 with success rates, in general, over 70%. The dose of rifampin varied from 300 mg/8 h, 450 mg/12 h, 600 mg/24 h, or 10 mg/kg/12 h. Rifampin is a concentration-dependent antibiotic and the best pharmacodynamic parameter related to its activity is Cmax/minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC). Rifampin administration in a 600 mg monodose is easier to administer and well tolerated but also could result in a higher Cmax/MIC than every 12 h dosage. In addition, rifampin is added for killing biofilms and the doubling time of biofilm bacteria is significantly longer than the planktonic counterpart23; therefore, the administration of rifampin once daily as for Mycobacterium tuberculosis infections appears reasonable. Ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin are the most widely used fluoroquinolones. Experience with ciprofloxacin is larger; however, levofloxacin has a higher oral bioavailability and it is more active against staphylococci. Moxifloxacin is more active than levofloxacin for staphylococci but rifampin significantly reduces the moxifloxacin serum concentration.24 Rifampin also reduces the serum concentration of clindamycin,25 cotrimoxazol,26 and linezolid27; therefore, close monitoring is necessary when these combinations are used. The clinical experience when PJIs are due to methicillin-resistant strains is scarce but the available information suggests that the outcome of methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci is associated with good results when rifampin combinations are used.28 In contrast, experience with MRSA has shown a higher failure rate15, 29-31; however, the majority of these patients were treated with intravenous vancomycin. There is some clinical experience using linezolid with or without rifampin in patients with acute PJI due to MRSA treated with debridement and retention of the implant, with a mean success rate around 60%.32-37 The toxicity associated with linezolid limits its administration for periods longer than 4–6 weeks; otherwise, serum levels are monitored.38 Rifampin combined with fusidic acid or cotrimoxazol achieved a 67%39 or 60%40 success rate, respectively. Indeed, recent in vitro data show that combinations of oral antibiotics including linezolid, fusidic acid, rifampin, or minocyclin using concentrations similar to those achieved in serum41 have a good activity against S. aureus biofilms in vitro; however, more clinical experience is needed. PJI due to penicillin-susceptible streptococci treated with intravenous penicillin or ampicillin has been associated with a high success rate.42 In this article, only 2 out of 19 patients failed but both had PJI due to group B streptococci (n = 7, failure rate of 28.5%). In contrast, a recent study that retrospectively reviewed 31 streptococcal PJI treated with DAIR described a failure rate of 67% that was similar to the rest of the cases of PJI, where the failure rate was 71%43; however, details about antibiotic therapy were not provided. Clinical data on PJI due to enterococcus are limited to one article that described an 80% success rate using debridement, retention of the implant, and intravenous ampicillin with or without gentamicin.44 The success rate was similar in the monotherapy and combination groups, but nephrotoxicity was significantly higher among those receiving aminoglycosides. Experience with oral antibiotics is scarce in streptococcal and enterococcal PJI but it is reasonable to use a β-lactam with a high oral bioavailability (amoxicillin for enterococci); and, since rifampin is active against streptococci, it is reasonable to recommend the addition of rifampin. Indeed, recent in vitro data showed that linezolid or ciprofloxacin combined with rifampin had better activity against enterococal biofilms than ampicillin or ampicillin plus rifampin;45 therefore, these combinations are potential alternatives. Evidence of PJI due to gram-negative organisms is scarce but the available information suggests that when fluoroquinolones (oral or intravenous) are part of the antibiotic treatment the success rate is higher than 80%.46, 47 Overall, SAT is not a hugely successful treatment for PJI. As a summary, the selected antibiotic regimen after debridement is associated with the outcome of the infection. Clinical data from observational studies suggest that regimens containing rifampin in PJI due to gram-positives and fluoroquinolones in PJI due to gram-negatives are associated with acceptable success rates. Clinical data are scarce about other antibiotic regimens for resistant bacteria or when the patient is allergic or develops adverse events. Some clinical data with linezolid,19, 33-36 cotrimoxazole,40 and moxifloxacin48 as monotherapies for staphylococcal PJI have shown relatively good results. Sometimes the use of rifampin is not feasible e.g. drug interactions. Question 2: How long should antibiotic treatment in acute PJI treated with debridement and retention of the implant be? Consensus The duration of intravenous and oral treatment is a question that remains unsolved and there is no clinical trial comparing different durations of antibiotic treatment. Delegate Vote Agree: 85%, Disagree: 11%, Abstain: 4% (Strong Consensus) Justification Clinical experience with osteomyelitis, including orthopaedic implant infections, has demonstrated that oral therapy or an early switch to oral therapy is as effective as IV treatment.49-51 The majority of authors consider 2–6 weeks of specific IV treatment followed by 3 months of specific oral antibiotics in total hip arthroplasty or 6 months in total knee arthroplasty necessary.27, 52, 53 Taking into account the high bioavailability (>90%) of oral antibiotics such as rifampin, fluoroquinolones, cotrimoxazole, tetracyclines, fusidic acid, clindamycin, or linezolid, and the poor activity against bacterial biofilms of the most commonly used IV antibiotics such as β-lactams or glycopeptides,9, 54 it is reasonable to recommend an IV period restricted to the first 5–10 days in order to reduce the bacterial inoculum in periprosthetic tissue. An early switch to oral therapy using potent antibiofilm agents with a high oral bioavailability is recommended. This regimen allows patient discharge from hospital and avoids problems associated with IV catheters. The 3 or 6 months total duration of antibiotic treatment is based on clinical experience15, 18-20 and another large series used a mean duration of oral therapy of 1.5 years.15 In both cases the success rate was >70%. Other authors using a markedly shorter duration of antibiotic regimens (in general ≤3 months) have also shown success rates >70%.3, 4, 23 This data suggest that more than 3 months do not improve the outcome of acute PJI treated with debridement and retention of the implant. A recent clinical trial randomized patients with early acute PJI due to staphylococci to receive 6 weeks (n = 22) or 12 weeks (n = 17) of levofloxacin plus rifampin (to be presented at the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Denver 2013, by Lora-Tamayo) and no differences in failure rate after 1 year of follow-up were observed. C-reactive protein (CRP) did not accurately predict the outcome of patients after debridement.55 Therefore, physical examination and clinical symptoms should guide the duration of antibiotic treatment. According to the literature, when an antibiotic regimen within the first month from debridement includes rifampin for a gram-positive infection1, 14-23 or a fluoroquinolone for gram-negative infection,46, 47 3 months is associated with good results3, 23, 47 and some preliminary data suggest that an even shorter duration could be adequate. However, more information is needed to confirm this result. Question 3: What is the role of antibiotic combinations for treatment of PJI managed without adequate surgical intervention? Consensus We do not recommend administration of antibiotics and open debridement alone without removing the implant in chronic PJI. Delegate Vote Agree: 84%, Disagree: 14%, Abstain: 2% (Strong Consensus) Justification SAT is defined as the use of oral antibiotics for the prevention of relapsing symptoms and functional failure in those patients with hardware retention. Antibiotic treatment alone in documented PJI is associated with a high failure rate.56 The rate of failure is markedly higher when the PJI fulfill the criteria of chronic infection, even when these patients undergo open debridement without implant removal.14, 57 However, there is no other alternative when: Patients refuse surgical treatment. Patients cannot be surgically treated because of a high surgical risk due to comorbidities. Patients are treated with inadequate surgery, such as: (1) debridement without implant removal in late chronic PJI or (2) debridement without implant removal in acute (early or late) PJI but without exchanging the polyethylene modular components. Patients have an infection that has not been eradicated according to clinical, laboratory, or imaging data. Functioning patient and implant will have an increased disability secondary to removal of the prosthesis. In these cases, identifying the microorganism before starting any antibiotic regimen is strongly recommended. Taking into account the low probability of infection eradication and limited clinical experience, the authors recommend the following two phases of antibiotic treatment: (1) induction to remission and (2) chronic suppression. The initial recommendation is to start a potent oral or IV combination of antibiotics, examples of which are listed in Table 1, including rifampin in cases of gram-positive infection or fluoroquinolone in cases of gram-negative infection whenever possible. The first phase of antibiotic treatment should be maintained until clinical signs of infection disappear and systemic inflammatory parameters (e.g., CRP or erythrocyte sedimentation rate) improve for at least 3 months. After this period, chronic oral antibiotic suppression should be initiated using monotherapy of antibiotics with a good safety profile and high oral bioavailability. Table 1. Main Oral Antibiotics for Treating Prosthetic Joint Infections Antibiotic BA (%) Oral Dose Adverse Effects Penicillin V 60 0.5–1 g/6–8 h Skin rash. Anaphylactic reactions. Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. Amoxicillin 80 1 g/8 h Amoxicillin-clavulanate 75c 875–125 mg/8 h Cloxacillin 50–70 0.5–1 g/4–6 h Cephalexin >90 0.5–1 g/6–8 h Cephadroxil >90 0.5–1 g/8–12 h Ciprofloxacin 75 500–750 mg/12 h Liver toxicity. Achilles tendinitis/ruptures Achilles, irreversible neuropathy. Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea Levofloxacin >95 500–750 mg/24 h Clindamycin 90 300 mg/8 h Gastrointestinal symptoms. Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. Rifampina 90d 10–20 mg/kg/24–12 h Liver toxicity. Skin rash. Gastrointestinal symptoms. Doxycycline 95 100 mg/12 h Skin hyperpigmentation. Liver toxicity. Minocycline 95 100 mg/12 h Cotrimoxazole (trimethoprim/sulfametoxazole) 90/90 160/800 mg/8–12 h Hematological (leucopenia, anemia). Skin rash. Avoid with cumarinics. Linezolid 100 600 mg/12 h Hematological. (thrombocytopenia, anemia). Avoid with tricyclic antidepressants. Fusidic acidb 90 0.5–1 g/8–12 h Liver toxicity. Fluconazole >90 400 mg/24 h Liver toxicity. Inhibits CYP3A4. BA, bioavailability; PB, protein binding. a Always use in combination therapy. b Not available in the United States. c Referring to clavulanate. d When taken with an empty stomach. Question 4: How long should suppressive therapy be administered? Consensus There is no consensus about the length of time that patients should receive suppressive antibiotic therapy; however, there is consensus that treatment should be individualized. Delegate Vote Agree: 94%, Disagree: 4%, Abstain: 2% (Strong Consensus) Justification Ideally, suppressive therapy should be administered for the rest of the patient's life. There is no clinical experience about the consequences of stopping SAT and the risk of relapse or infection dissemination and secondary sepsis. However, experience from chronic osteomyelitis suggests that these infections are, in general, localized. The average length of oral antibiotic suppression was approximately 23 months when different studies were compared. There are some published studies that used oral suppression for a range between 4 and 100 months in patients with chronic PJI,58-61 with success rates >60% after prolonged follow-up periods; however, other authors did not observe similar results and reported a high rate of adverse events associated with chronic antibiotic therapy. Question 5: What antibiotics could be useful for suppressive treatment based on type of organism? Consensus There is no consensus regarding appropriate antibiotics for suppression therapy. The antibiotic should be chosen according to the susceptibility pattern of the isolated microorganism, preferably obtained from deep samples by joint aspiration or surgical debridement. The list of potential antibiotics and their doses is provided. Delegate Vote Agree: 97%, Disagree: 3%, Abstain: 0% (Strong Consensus) REFERENCES 1 Lora-Tamayo J, Murillo O, Iribarren JA, et al. 2012. A large multicenter study of methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic joint infections managed with implant retention. Clin Infect Dis 56: 182– 194. 2 Silva M, Tharani R, Schmalzried TP. 2002. Results of direct exchange or debridement of the infected total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 125– 131. 3 Bernard L, Legout L, Zurcher-Pfund L, et al. 2010. Six weeks of antibiotic treatment is sufficient following surgery for septic arthroplasty. J Infect 61: 125– 132. 4 Achermann Y, Eigenmann K, Ledergerber B, et al. 2013. Factors associated with rifampin resistance in staphylococcal periprosthetic joint infections (PJI): a matched case-control study. Infection 41: 431– 437. 5 Sia IG, Berbari EF, Karchmer AW. 2005. Prosthetic joint infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 19: 885– 914. 6 Berbari EF, Osmon DR, Duffy MC, et al. 2006. Outcome of prosthetic joint infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the impact of medical and surgical therapy in 200 episodes. Clin Infect Dis 42: 216– 223. 7 Fehring TK, Odum SM, Berend KR, et al. 2012. Failure of irrigation and debridement for early postoperative periprosthetic infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471: 250– 257. 8 Baldoni D, Haschke M, Rajacic Z, et al. 2009. Linezolid alone or combined with rifampin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in experimental foreign-body infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53: 1142– 1148. 9 Ceri H, Olson ME, Stremick C, et al. 1999. The calgary biofilm device: new technology for rapid determination of antibiotic susceptibilities of bacterial biofilms. J Clin Microbiol 37: 1771– 1776. 10 Garrigos C, Murillo O, Euba G, et al. 2010. Efficacy of usual and high doses of daptomycin in combination with rifampin versus alternative therapies in experimental foreign-body infection by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54: 5251– 5256. 11 Monzon M, Oteiza C, Leiva J, et al. 2002. Biofilm testing of Staphylococcus epidermidis clinical isolates: low performance of vancomycin in relation to other antibiotics. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 44: 319– 324. 12 Saleh-Mghir A, Muller-Serieys C, Dinh A, et al. 2011. Adjunctive rifampin is crucial to optimizing daptomycin efficacy against rabbit prosthetic joint infection due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55: 4589– 4593. 13 Zimmerli W, Frei R, Widmer AF, et al. 1994. Microbiological tests to predict treatment outcome in experimental device-related infections due to Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother 33: 959– 967. 14 Barberan J, Aguilar L, Carroquino G, et al. 2006. Conservative treatment of staphylococcal prosthetic joint infections in elderly patients. Am J Med 119: 993 e7– e10. 15 Byren I, Bejon P, Atkins BL, et al. 2009. One hundred and twelve infected arthroplasties treated with 'DAIR' (debridement, antibiotics and implant retention): antibiotic duration and outcome. J Antimicrob Chemother 63: 1264– 1271. 16 Cobo J, Miguel LG, Euba G, et al. 2011. Early prosthetic joint infection: outcomes with debridement and implant retention followed by antibiotic therapy. Clin Microbiol Infect 17: 1632– 1637. 17 El Helou OC, Berbari EF, Lahr BD, et al. 2010. Efficacy and safety of rifampin containing regimen for staphylococcal prosthetic joint infections treated with debridement and retention. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 29: 961– 967. 18 Giulieri SG, Graber P, Ochsner PE, et al. 2004. Management of infection associated with total hip arthroplasty according to a treatment algorithm. Infection 32: 222– 228. 19 Laffer RR, Graber P, Ochsner PE, et al. 2006. Outcome of prosthetic knee-associated infection: evaluation of 40 consecutive episodes at a single centre. Clin Microbiol Infect 12: 433– 439. 20 Senneville E, Joulie D, Legout L, et al. 2011. Outcome and predictors of treatment failure in total hip/knee prosthetic joint infections due to Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis 53: 334– 340. 21 Soriano A, Garcia S, Bori G, et al. 2006. Treatment of acute post-surgical infection of joint arthroplasty. Clin Microbiol Infect 12: 930– 933. 22 Soriano A, Garcia S, Ortega M, et al. 2003. Treatment of acute infection of total or partial hip arthroplasty with debridement and oral chemotherapy. Med Clin (Barc) 121: 81– 85. 23 Vilchez F, Martinez-Pastor JC, Garcia-Ramiro S, et al. 2011. Outcome and predictors of treatment failure in early post-surgical prosthetic joint infections due to Staphylococcus aureus treated with debridement. Clin Microbiol Infect 17: 439– 444. 24 Anderl JN, Zahller J, Roe F, et al. 2003. Role of nutrient limitation and stationary-phase existence in Klebsiella pneumoniae biofilm resistance to ampicillin and ciprofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 47: 1251– 1256. 25 Nijland HM, Ruslami R, Suroto AJ, et al. 2007. Rifampicin reduces plasma concentrations of moxifloxacin in patients with tuberculosis. Clin Infect Dis 45: 1001– 1007. 26 Zeller V, Dzeing-Ella A, Kitzis MD, et al. 2010. Continuous clindamycin infusion, an innovative approach to treating bone and joint infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54: 88– 92. 27 Gandelman K, Zhu T, Fahmi OA, et al. 2011. Unexpected effect of rifampin on the pharmacokinetics of linezolid: in silico and in vitro approaches to explain its mechanism. J Clin Pharmacol 51: 229– 236. 28 Tornero E, Garcia-Oltra E, Garcia-Ramiro S, et al. 2012. Prosthetic joint infections due to Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci. Int J Artif Organs 35: 884– 892. 29 Bradbury T, Fehring TK, Taunton M, et al. 2009. The fate of acute methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus periprosthetic knee infections treated by open debridement and retention of components. J Arthroplasty 24: 101– 104. 30 Ferry T, Uckay I, Vaudaux P, et al. 2010. Risk factors for treatment failure in orthopedic device-related methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 29: 171– 180. 31 Salgado CD, Dash S, Cantey JR, et al. 2007. Higher risk of failure of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic joint infections. Clin Orthop Relat Res 461: 48– 53. 32 Bassetti M, Vitale F, Melica G, et al. 2005. Linezolid in the treatment of Gram-positive prosthetic joint infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 55: 387– 390. 33 Gomez J, Canovas E, Banos V, et al. 2011. Linezolid plus rifampin as a salvage therapy in prosthetic joint infections treated without removing the implant. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55: 4308– 4310. 34 Rao N, Hamilton CW. 2007. Efficacy and safety of linezolid for Gram-positive orthopedic infections: a prospective case series. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 59: 173– 179. 35 Rao N, Ziran BH, Hall RA, et al. 2004. Successful treatment of chronic bone and joint infections with oral linezolid. Clin Orthop Relat Res 427: 67– 71. 36 Razonable RR, Osmon DR, Steckelberg JM. 2004. Linezolid therapy for orthopedic infections. Mayo Clin Proc 79: 1137– 1144. 37 Soriano A, Gomez J, Gomez L, et al. 2007. Efficacy and tolerability of prolonged linezolid therapy in the treatment of orthopedic implant infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 26: 353– 356. 38 Pea F, Furlanut M, Cojutti P, et al. 2010. Therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid: a retrospective monocentric analysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54: 4605– 4610. 39 Peel TN, Buising KL, Dowsey MM, et al. 2012. Outcome of debridement and retention in prosthetic joint infections by methicillin-resistant staphylococci, with special reference to rifampin and fusidic acid combination therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57: 350– 355. 40 Stein A, Bataille JF, Drancourt M, et al. 1998. Ambulatory treatment of multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus-infected orthopedic implants with high-dose oral co-trimoxazole (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole). Antimicrob Agents Chemother 42: 3086– 3091. 41 Wu WS, Chen CC, Chuang YC, et al. 2013. Efficacy of combination oral antimicrobial agents against biofilm-embedded methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 46: 89– 95. 42 Meehan AM, Osmon DR, Duffy MC, et al. 2003. Outcome of penicillin-susceptible streptococcal prosthetic joint infection treated with debridement and retention of the prosthesis. Clin Infect Dis 36: 845– 849. 43 Odum SM, Fehring TK, Lombardi AV, et al. 2011. Irrigation and debridement for periprosthetic infections: does the organism matter? J Arthroplasty 26: 114– 118. 44 El Helou OC, Berbari EF, Marculescu CE, et al. 2008. Outcome of enterococcal prosthetic joint infection: is combination systemic therapy superior to monotherapy? Clin Infect Dis 47: 903– 909. 45 Holmberg A, Morgelin M, Rasmussen M. 2012. Effectiveness of ciprofloxacin or linezolid in combination with rifampicin against Enterococcus faecalis in biofilms. J Antimicrob Chemother 67: 433– 439. 46 Aboltins CA, Dowsey MM, Buising KL, et al. 2011. Gram-negative prosthetic joint infection treated with debridement, prosthesis retention and antibiotic regimens including a fluoroquinolone. Clin Microbiol Infect 17: 862– 867. 47 Martinez-Pastor JC, Munoz-Mahamud E, Vilchez F, et al. 2009. Outcome of acute prosthetic joint infections due to gram-negative bacilli treated with open debridement and retention of the prosthesis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53: 4772– 4777. 48 San Juan R, Garcia-Reyne A, Caba P, et al. 2010. Safety and efficacy of moxifloxacin monotherapy for treatment of orthopedic implant-related staphylococcal infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54: 5161– 5166. 49 Daver NG, Shelburne SA, Atmar RL, et al. 2007. Oral step-down therapy is comparable to intravenous therapy for Staphylococcus aureus osteomyelitis. J Infect 54: 539– 544. 50 Euba G, Murillo O, Fernandez-Sabe N, et al. 2009. Long-term follow-up trial of oral rifampin-cotrimoxazole combination versus intravenous cloxacillin in treatment of chronic staphylococcal osteomyelitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53: 2672– 2676. 51 Karamanis EM, Matthaiou DK, Moraitis LI, et al. 2008. Fluoroquinolones versus beta-lactam based regimens for the treatment of osteomyelitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33: E297– E304. 52 Osmon DR, Berbari EF, Berendt AR, et al. 2013. Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 56: e1– e25. 53 Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE. 2004. Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med 351: 1645– 1654. 54 Edmiston CE Jr, Goheen MP, Seabrook GR, et al. 2006. Impact of selective antimicrobial agents on staphylococcal adherence to biomedical devices. Am J Surg 192: 344– 354. 55 Bejon P, Byren I, Atkins BL, et al. 2011. Serial measurement of the C-reactive protein is a poor predictor of treatment outcome in prosthetic joint infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 66: 1590– 1593. 56 Bengtson S, Knutson K. 1991. The infected knee arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up of 357 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 62: 301– 311. 57 Koyonos L, Zmistowski B, Della Valle CJ, et al. 2011. Infection control rate of irrigation and debridement for periprosthetic joint infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469: 3043– 3048. 58 Lentino JR. 2003. Prosthetic joint infections: bane of orthopedists, challenge for infectious disease specialists. Clin Infect Dis 36: 1157– 1161. 59 Marculescu CE, Berbari EF, Hanssen AD, et al. 2006. Outcome of prosthetic joint infections treated with debridement and retention of components. Clin Infect Dis 42: 471– 478. 60 Rao N, Crossett LS, Sinha RK, et al. 2003. Long-term suppression of infection in total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 414: 55– 60. 61 Segreti J, Nelson JA, Trenholme GM. 1998. Prolonged suppressive antibiotic therapy for infected orthopedic prostheses. Clin Infect Dis 27: 711– 713. Citing Literature Volume32, IssueS1January 2014Pages S152-S157 ReferencesRelatedInformation