Article Text

PDF
Systematic review
The use of antibiotic prophylaxis in hip arthroscopy is under-reported and lacks evidence-based guidelines: a systematic review and survey
  1. Seper Ekhtiari1,
  2. Chloe E Haldane2,
  3. Darren de SA3,
  4. Nicole Simunovic4,
  5. Ivan H Wong5,
  6. Forough Farrokhyar2,4,
  7. Olufemi R Ayeni1
  1. 1Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2Michael G Degroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  4. 4Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Centre for Evidence Based Orthopaedics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  5. 5Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Dalhousie University,Capital District Health Authority, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Olufemi R Ayeni, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8N20 3Z5, Canada; ayenif{at}mcmaster.ca

Abstract

Importance Hip arthroscopy is an increasingly common orthopaedic procedure with postoperative infection rates<5%. With the growing challenge of antibiotic resistance and rising healthcare costs, it is important to establish whether antibiotic prophylaxis is routinely used in hip arthroscopy, and whether it is necessary.

Objective The objectives of this review were to (1) report current practice patterns with regard to antibiotic prophylaxis for hip arthroscopy and (2) present the available evidence regarding the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in hip arthroscopy.

Evidence review The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed in the execution and reporting of this study. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed were searched and screened in duplicate. Data regarding patient demographics, surgical indications, surgical techniques, use of antibiotic prophylaxis and adverse events were collected. Study quality was assessed in duplicate using Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies criteria. A survey was distributed to high-volume hip arthroscopists to gauge their practice patterns. Data were analysed and presented using descriptive statistics.

Findings Nine studies of primarily level IV evidence (78%) and of fair quality were included. Overall, 592 patients (652 hips; 56.2% male) were included in the review, with a mean age of 40.6 years. Notably, 1069 otherwise eligible studies were excluded from this review because they did not report on their use (or lack thereof) of prophylactic antibiotics. Overall, 390 patients received routine antibiotic prophylaxis, 160 patients did not and 42 patients received prophylaxis only if an implant was used. Only three infections were reported among 652 operations, with all infections from studies that routinely used antibiotic prophylaxis. The survey had a 60% response rate (21/35), and revealed that 81% of respondents routinely provide prophylactic antibiotics, most commonly preoperative intravenous cefazolin (66.7%). The most common postoperative antibiotic was cephalexin.

Conclusions and relevance Antibiotic prophlyaxis use in hip arthroscopy is very under-reported. Routine prophylaxis was the most common practice pattern in both the literature and the survey. Overall, postoperative infection rates are extremely low. Future studies are required to prospectively assess the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in hip arthroscopy.

Level of evidence Level IV, systematic review of level III and IV studies

  • hip
  • arthroscopy

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors SE, DdS and ORA conceived the systematic review, and NS conceived the survey component. SE and CEH carried out the search, screening process and assessment of study quality. SE designed, distributed and analysed the survey component. SE drafted the manuscript. CEH edited the manuscript. DdS and ORA provided key expert input and editing throughout the process. IHW edited the manuscript and provided key expert input. NS and FF provided key expert feedback on methodological and statistical aspects. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.