Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/214217
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLora Tamayo, Jaime-
dc.contributor.authorMancheño Losa, Mikel-
dc.contributor.authorMeléndez Carmona, María Ángeles-
dc.contributor.authorHernández Jiménez, Pilar-
dc.contributor.authorBenito, Natividad-
dc.contributor.authorMurillo, Oscar-
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-02T15:52:30Z-
dc.date.available2024-07-02T15:52:30Z-
dc.date.issued2024-03-23-
dc.identifier.issn2079-6382-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2445/214217-
dc.description.abstractProsthetic joint infections are considered difficult to treat they needing aggressive surgery and long antimicrobial treatments. However, the exact duration of these therapies has been established empirically. In the last years, several studies have explored the possibility of reducing the length of treatment in this setting, with conflicting results. In this narrative review, we critically appraise the published evidence, considering the different surgical approaches (implant retention [DAIR] and one-step and two-step exchange procedures) separately. In patients managed with DAIR, usually treated for at least 12 weeks, a large, randomized trial failed to show that 6 weeks were non-inferior. However, another randomized clinical trial supports the use of 8 weeks, as long as the surgical conditions are favorable and antibiotics with good antibiofilm activity can be administered. In patients managed with a two-step exchange procedure, usually treated during 6 weeks, a randomized clinical trial showed the efficacy of a 4-week course of antimicrobials. Also, the use of local antibiotics may allow the use of even shorter treatments. Finally, in the case of one-step exchange procedures, there is a trend towards reducing the length of therapy, and the largest randomized clinical trial supports the use of 6 weeks of therapy.-
dc.format.extent16 p.-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherMDPI AG-
dc.relation.isformatofReproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13040293-
dc.relation.ispartofAntibiotics, 2024, vol. 13, num. 4-
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13040293-
dc.rightscc by (c) Lora Tamayo, Jaime et al, 2024-
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/*
dc.sourceArticles publicats en revistes (Institut d'lnvestigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL))-
dc.subject.classificationArticulacions artificials-
dc.subject.classificationMedicaments antiinfecciosos-
dc.subject.otherArtificial joints-
dc.subject.otherAnti-infective agents-
dc.titleAppropriate Duration of Antimicrobial Treatment for Prosthetic Joint Infections: A Narrative Review-
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article-
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion-
dc.date.updated2024-06-20T09:37:31Z-
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess-
dc.identifier.pmid38666969-
Appears in Collections:Articles publicats en revistes (Institut d'lnvestigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL))

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
antibiotics-13-00293-v2.pdf536.5 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons