Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_999_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
26 Мб
Скачать
36
https://t.me/med1917
53. Molina G, Jiang W, Edmondson L, Gibbons L, Huang LC, Kiang MV, Haynes AB, Gawande AA, Berry WR, Singer SJ.Implementation of the surgical safety checklist in South Carolina hospitals is associated with improvement in perceived perioperative safety. J Am Col Surg. 2016;222(5):725–736.e5.
54. Haynes AB, Edmondson L, Lipsitz SR, Molina G, Neville BA, Singer SJ, Moonan AT, etal. Mortality trends after a voluntary checklist-based surgical safety collaborative. Ann Surg. 2017;266(6):923–9.
55. Moullin JC, Dickson KS, Stadnick NA, Rabin B, Aarons GA. Systematic review of the exploration, preparation, implementation, sustainment (EPIS) framework. Implement Sci: IS. 2019;14(1):1.
56. Moyal-Smith R, Etheridge JC, Lim SR, Sonnay Y, Tan HK, Yong TT, Havens JM, Brindle ME.Creating a high-performance surgical safety checklist: a multimodal evaluation plan to reinvigorate the checklist. J Eval Clin Pract. 2023;29(2):341–50.
57. Gillespie BM, Marshall A.Implementation of safety checklists in surgery: a realist synthesis of evidence. Implem Sci: IS. 2015;10:137.
58. Ramírez-Torres CA, Pedraz-Marcos A, Maciá-Soler ML, Rivera-Sanz F.A scoping review of strategies used to implement the surgical safety checklist. AORN J. 2021;113(6):610–9.
59. Turley N, Elam M, Brindle ME.International perspectives on modications to the surgical safety checklist. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(6):e2317183.
60. Morgan PJ, Cunningham L, Mitra S, Wong N, Wu W, Noguera V, Li M, Semple J.Surgical safety checklist: implementation in an ambulatory surgical facility. Can J Anaesth. 2013;60(6):528–38.
61. Patel J, Ahmed K, Khan GKA, F, Marsh H, Khan MS, Dasgupta P.An overview of the use and implementation of checklists in surgical Specialities- a systematic review. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1317–23.
62. Corbally MT, Tierney E.Parental involvement in the preoperative surgical safety checklist is welcomed by both parents and staff. Int J Ped. 2014;2014:791490.
63. Fridrich A, Imhof A, Schwappach DLB.How much and what local adaptation is acceptable? A comparison of 24 surgical safety checklists in Switzerland. J Pat Saf. 2021;17(3):217–22.
64. Conley DM, Singer SJ, Edmondson L, Berry WR, Gawande AA.Effective surgical safety checklist implementation. J Am Col Surg. 2011;212(5):873–9.
65. James TA. Gaining leadership buy-in for organizational change in health care. 2020. post-
graduateeducation.hms.harvard.edu/trends- medicine/gaining- leadership- buy- organizational­change- health- care. Accessed 16 Aug 2023.
66. Berry WR, Edmondson L, Gibbons LR, Childers AK, Haynes AB, Foster R, Singer SJ, Gawande AA.Scaling safety: the South Carolina surgical safety checklist experience. Health Aff. 2018;37(11):1779–86.
67. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, Griffey R, Hensley M.Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76.
68. White MC, Randall K, NFE C-C, Sodogas F, Quenum S, Wright K, Close KL, Russ S, Sevdalis N, AJM L.Implementation and evaluation of Nationwide scale-up of the surgical safety check­list. Br J Surg. 2019;106(2):e91–102.
69. Kariyo PC, Hightower J, Ndihokubwayoii JB, Tumusiime P, Mwikisa C. Surgical safety checklist: a short experience in African countries. Afr Health Monit. 2013;16:36–9.
70. Buissonniere, Marine. “Checking in on the checklist.” Lifebox, Ariadne Labs. 2020. life-
box.org/wp- content/uploads/2022/08/Checking- In- On- the- Checklist- web.pdf. Accessed 16
Aug 2023.
71. White MC, Peven K, Clancy O, Okonkwo I, Bakolis I, Russ S, Leather AJM, Sevdalis N.Implementation strategies and the uptake of the World Health Organization surgical safety checklist in low and middle income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2021;273(6):e196–205.
M. Kochis et al.
2 Implementation andUtilization ofChecklists inSurgical Patient Safety
https://t.me/med1917
72. Delisle M, Pradarelli JC, Panda N, Koritsanszky L, Sonnay Y, Lipsitz S, Pearse R, et al. Variation in global uptake of the surgical safety checklist. Br J Surg. 2020;107(2):e151–60.
73. Forrester JA, Starr N, Negussie T, Schaps D, Adem M, Alemu S, Amenu D, etal. Clean cut (adaptive, multimodal surgical infection prevention Programme) for low-resource settings: a prospective quality improvement study. Br J Surg. 2021;108(6):727–34.
74. Boillat T, Grantcharov P, Rivas H.Increasing completion rate and benets of checklists: pro­spective evaluation of surgical safety checklists with smart glasses. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(4):e13447.
75. Boillat T, Rivas H. It is in the box! Improving the usability and benets of surgical safety checklists—a feasibility study. Int J Ind Erg. 2021;86:103217.
37
Chapter 3
https://t.me/med1917
Controversies inAntibiotic Prophylaxis inOrthopaedic Surgery
ElishaKrasin
Abbreviations
HIV Human Immunodeciency Virus VRE Vancomycin-resistant enterococci MRSA Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus MSSA Methicillin-sensitive staphylococcus aureus SSI Surgical site infection THA Total hip arthroplasty TKA Total knee arthroplasty
Introduction
Surgical site infection is a highly concerning issue in the eld of orthopaedic sur­gery. What starts as a simple injury that could be effectively treated with a standard procedure can quickly escalate into a chronic condition, necessitating prolonged hospitalisation, ongoing antibiotic therapy, and repeated surgeries. The complica­tions associated with infection can result in treatment failure, disability, limb ampu­tation, and even mortality. Given these implications, the prevention of infections in orthopaedics is of paramount importance.
E. Krasin (*) Maccabi Healthcare Services, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel
Switzerland AG 2024 J. Faintuch, S. Faintuch (eds.), Recent Strategies in High Risk Surgery,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56270-9_3
39© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
40
https://t.me/med1917
E. Krasin
Early Experience
Once penicillin became available during World War II, it was used to prevent infec­tions in orthopaedic surgery [1]. Controversy followed, when, in 1960, Pulaski and Taylor noted that most infecting organisms in orthopaedic surgery were resistant to the antibiotics commonly used for prophylaxis at the time. They also mentioned that infection rates were higher among patients who received antibiotics. Their conclu­sion was that “routine indiscriminate antibiotic prophylaxis for elective surgical conditions served no useful purpose” [2].
Burke pointed out in 1963 that “antibacterials can increase natural resistance when natural mechanisms are ineffective” [3]. The contemporary practice of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in orthopaedics is based on the work of Boyd and Burke, who in 1973 investigated ways to reduce the incidence of wound and soft tissue infections, as well as infections around orthopaedic implants [4]. Norden in 1976 still believed that antibiotic prophylaxis was a controversial issue [5] Originally, the decision to prescribe cephalosporins was mainly aimed at the prevalent Staphylococcal and Streptococcal infections. These bacteria were largely susceptible to methicillin as well as rst and second generation cephalosporins.
The routine use of cephalosporins in orthopaedics has been proven by numerous clinical trials, which have convincingly demonstrated their effectiveness in reducing infection rates. Rosenfeld et al. concluded that “rst-generation cephalosporins, such as cephalothin or cefazolin, are the best chemoprophylactic agents because of their excellent antistaphylococcal activity and lack of signicant toxicity” [6].
Current Epidemiology and Microbiology
Most surgical site infections are obtained during the operation, with the most com­mon source being the patient’s skin as well as airborne micro-organisms from oper­ating theatre staff [7]. In clean orthopaedic surgery, the reported wound infection rate is 5.1%, while the administration of preoperative antibiotics reduces it to 0.8%. In clean- contaminated surgery the rates are 10.1% and 1.3% respectively, and in contaminated surgery 21.9% and 10.2%, [8]. Administration of antibiotic prophy­laxis in surgery of open fractures provided “a large, consistent reduction in infection risk” [9].
Present day developments in bacterial resistance and the increasing number of methicillin-resistant staphylococci may make the use of rst- or second-gen­eration cephalosporins in orthopaedics almost obsolete. This contrasts with their still fairly good acceptance in the eld of general surgery. About 30% of infec­tions after joint replacement are polymicrobial, meaning they are a combination of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. Of the monomicrobial infections,
3 Controversies inAntibiotic Prophylaxis inOrthopaedic Surgery
https://t.me/med1917
43% are caused by Staphylococcus aureus (4% by methicillin-resistant bacteria) [10]. Coagulase- negative Staphylococci were found to be responsible for 30% of infections after knee replacement and 19% after hip replacement. Gram-negative bacteria were found in 17% of infections after hip and knee arthroplasty [10].
A Spanish study of total joint arthroplasties showed an increase in Gram-negative infections along the years, from 21% to 67%. Staphylococcus aureus remains the most common microorganism after fracture surgery, but resistance to methicillin is increasing and may even exceed susceptible species in some areas [10]. Coagulase­negative staphylococci are also common and 80–90% resistant to methicillin. The incidence of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii is increasing, as is the incidence of gas- trointestinal organisms such as Escherichia coli, Enterobacter, Enterococcus, Klebsiella, and Proteus [10, 11].
Our recent work demonstrated an increase in oxacillin resistance of Staphylococci, and high incidence of non-gastrointestinal Gram-negative bacteria and gastrointes­tinal bacteria [12]. Currently, Staphylococcus aureus resistance to vancomycin is rare, but could become a problem in the future. Intermediate vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is already observed and is likely to become more of a prob­lem in the near future [12].
41
Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci
These are of major importance in orthopaedic surgery because of their potential to cause infections and complications that are difcult to treat. In addition, the pres­ence of VRE in healthcare facilities raises concerns about the potential for transmis­sion and outbreaks among patients, particularly those with compromised immune systems [13].
Cutibacterium acnes is considered a major pathogen in shoulder surgery and may exceed even Staphylococci in prevalence [7]. It shows good sensitivity to anti­biotics commonly used for bone and joint infections, particularly beta-lactams, qui­nolones, and rifampicin. However, resistance to some antibiotics, in particular clindamycin, is emerging. Furthermore, Cutibacterium acnes, despite being an anaerobic bacterium, also shows natural resistance to metronidazole.
Fungal Infections
These occur in less than 1% of prosthetic joint infections, but should nevertheless be considered, if not in prophylaxis, in the diagnosis itself of the infection [14]. Precisely because of the low frequency, they tend to be overlooked and misdiag­nosed, precipitating much tissue destruction and deleterious systemic effects.
42
https://t.me/med1917
E. Krasin
General Recommendations
The optimal prophylactic antibiotic should include coverage for resistant Gram­positive as well as for common Gram-negative agents. Adequate bloodstream and tissue concentrations should be achieved along the entire procedure. Additionally, it is crucial that bacteria do not readily develop resistance to this antibiotic, consider­ing its intended widespread utilisation.
Practical Guidelines
The simplest way to prevent postoperative infections is not to operate, whenever intervention is not mandatory. The indications for most orthopaedic operations are relative and in most cases, there is a conservative alternative. In patients with low functional requirements and increased risk for infection such as the elderly, the immunosuppressed and those with serious comorbidities, conservative non-surgical treatment should always be considered.
Preoperative screening and decolonisation of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus is a controversial issue, but most authorities recommend nasal swabs for screening in elective situations. If pos­itive for Staphylococcus aureus, decolonisation by nasal application of mupirocin twice daily to both nares for 5days should be considered [7]. Some recommend additional bathing with chlorhexidine daily before scheduled surgery for 5days.
Current Practice
The adopted guidelines for perioperative antibiotic administration in orthopaedics are quite standard, and in my opinion, they will soon be obsolete. A preliminary distinction should be made between the prevention of infection in surgery of closed fractures and injuries as well as clean elective or semi-elective surgery, in compari­son with open fractures and injuries.
Timing andDuration
These are somewhat controversial points as well. Most authors recommend admin­istering the rst dose about half an hour before the incision and no more than 2h before. Administering the drug during or after the start of surgery renders treatment ineffective [15]. The ideal duration of postoperative antibiotic treatment is not yet clearly dened, although most reports suggest that there is no additional benet from prophylactic antibiotic treatment more than 24h after surgery [15].
3 Controversies inAntibiotic Prophylaxis inOrthopaedic Surgery
https://t.me/med1917
A study of extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis in high-risk patients involved a 7-day antibiotic regimen (Cefadroxil 500mg two times per day or Clindamycin 300mg three times per day with Sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim 800mg/160mg two times per day) in patients with a BMI 35, diabetes mellitus, smoking, chronic kidney disease, autoimmune disease or with nasal colonisation of MSSA or MRSA. Before the introduction of the extended antibiotic therapy protocol, the incidence of PJI in the primary THA and TKA in the high-risk subset were 4.3% and 2.1%, respectively. After the introduction of this protocol, the corresponding rates decreased to 1.1% and 0.4%, which is in line with the rates observed in patients without high risk receiving standard perioperative prophylaxis [16]. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) recommends prophylaxis for no more than 24h, regardless of the use of drains or catheters [17].
43
Closed Fractures andClean Elective or Semi-Elective Surgery
Cefazolin 2g (or 3g if >100kg body weight) IV 30–60min before skin incision, then cefazolin 2g or 3g IV every 8h for 24h is advised. In beta-lactam allergic patients the recommended protocol is vancomycin IV (15mg/kg) or clindamycin 600–900mg IV 60–90min before skin incision, then vancomycin every 12h or clindamycin 600–900mg IV every 6h for 24h [8, 18].
Clostridioides Difcile
In the UK, cephalosporins are no longer rst line prophylaxis in many centres, mainly due to concerns about Clostridioides difcile infection. Third-generation cephalosporins are strongly associated with such supervenient infection and prophylaxis with a single dose of cephalosporin is sufcient to cause the devel­opment of Clostridioides difcile colonisation. Flucloxacillin is a penicillinase­resistant penicillin with good coverage against Staphylococcus aureus (it is ineffective against MRSA and 90% of coagulase-negative staphylococci) and is commonly used in the UK as rst-line treatment for Staphylococcus aureus infection [17].
Open Fractures
The Gustilo and Anderson classication is one of the most broadly used classi­cations for open fractures. The incidence of wound infection is directly corre­lated with the class of fracture, with 0–2% in grade I fractures, 2–7% in grade II fractures, 7–10% in grade IIIA fractures, 10–50% in grade IIIB fractures, and
44
https://t.me/med1917
25–50% in grade IIIC fractures [19]. The efcacy of prophylactic treatment for the types IIIB and IIIC is questionable, contrasting with types I-IIIA, for which the benet is clear. In case of obesity of more than 100kg, the doses should be doubled [20].
The duration of antibiotic therapy varies from one institution to another and the choice of drugs is not standardized. Penicillins, cephalosporins, aminoglycosides and uoroquinolones are common options. Broader spectrum agents including monobactams and glycopeptides, have been used for additional coverage [21]. In general, antimicrobials are discontinued 24h after surgery, but it may be appropri­ate to continue them for up to 72h for heavily contaminated wounds. Antibiotics should not be given beyond 72 h unless a second surgery is performed within that time.
Here is an example of the protocol used by Garner etal. for open fractures:
For type I and II open fractures: Cefazolin 2 g IV immediately and q8 hours,
with three total doses.
For penicillin allergic: Clindamycin 900mg IV immediately and q8 hours (three
total doses).
For type III open fractures: Ceftriaxone 2 g IV immediately; Vancomycin 1 g IV
immediately and after 12h (two total doses).
For penicillin allergic: Aztreonam 2 g IV immediately and q8 hours (three total
doses); Vancomycin 1 g IV immediately and after 12h (two total doses) [21].
E. Krasin
Immunocompromised Patients
There is no conclusive evidence suggesting that HIV-positive patients experience a higher infection rate during elective surgery or trauma, and therefore, long­term antibiotic therapy is not warranted for these individuals. Despite the acknowledged heightened risk, there is insufcient evidence to justify deviations from standard antibiotic therapy for diabetic patients, or those with rheumatoid arthritis [17].
Local Antibiotics
High-quality evidence for combined local/ systemic prescription is scarce in ortho­paedic surgery and particularly in surgery of the shoulder and elbow. The role of local wound antibiotics needs to be further established in future research [7].
The interest of combinations such as cefazolin and vancomycin in preventing periprosthetic knee infections remains uncertain, as strong prospective studies are lacking [22]. The risk of developing acute renal failure is a major drawback of this combination [23].
3 Controversies inAntibiotic Prophylaxis inOrthopaedic Surgery
https://t.me/med1917
45
Future Developments
The task of creating a vaccine capable of preventing Staphylococcus aureus infection has proven to be formidable. This bacterium is a commensal organism found in the nasal mucosa and skin of humans, and it has developed a sophisticated arsenal speci­cally designed to evade the human immune system. However, the development of an effective vaccine holds the potential to address the escalating concerns of antibiotic resistance and the emergence of vancomycin-resistant staphylococci. Currently, there are at least ve vaccines against Staphylococcus aureus that are undergoing various stages of clinical trials. Concurrently, research has also focused on bacteriophages, monoclonal antibodies, centyrins (monoclonal antibody mimetics), and novel types of antibiotics. Some of these approaches have shown promising results in human testing. Additionally, various strategies have been explored in preclinical settings to enhance the delivery of anti-staphylococcal drugs for specic infections, including skin and soft tissue infections, implant-associated osteomyelitis, and pneumonia [24].
Conclusion
First generation cephalosporins are still popular; second-generation cephalosporins offer greater protection against Gramnegative bacteria, but have reduced efcacy against staphylococci. Our recent results clearly indicate a worrying increase in resistance to clindamycin [12]. The choice of vancomycin for this task also presents a number of challenges [25]. Thus, a single regimen will hardly be ideal for all patients, and risk assessment should precede prophylactic prescriptions.
A shorter duration of antibiotic prophylaxis can be just as effective in preventing SSI as a longer duration, while reducing the risk of developing antibiotic resistance. A single dose of cefazolin administered 1h before surgery was as effective as a three-dose regimen to prevent SSI in patients undergoing pure orthopaedic proce­dures, such as joint replacement [26]. In cases where there is a high prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the use of alternative antibiotics or combinations thereof may be necessary to provide adequate prophylaxis.
References
1. Hampton OP.Reparative surgery of compound Battle fractures in the Mediterranean theater of operations. Ann Surg. 1945;122:289–332.
2. Pulaski EJ, Taylor LW.Pyogenic infections in orthopedic surgery—prevention and manage­ment. Calif Med. 1960;92:35–7.
3. Burke JF. Preoperative antibiotics. Surg Clin North Am. 1963;43:665–76. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0039- 6109(16)36983- 3.
4. Boyd RJ, Burke JF, Colton T.A double-blind clinical trial of prophylactic antibiotics in hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973;55:1251–8.
46
https://t.me/med1917
5. Norden CW.Antibiotic prophylaxis in orthopedic surgery. Clin Orthop. 1976;114:203–6.
6. Rosenfeld MB, Campos J, Ratzan KR, Uredo I.Chemoprophylaxis with cefoxitin and cepha­lothin in orthopedic surgery: a comparison. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1981;19:826–30.
https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.19.5.826.
7. Boyle KK, Duquin TR.Antibiotic prophylaxis and prevention of surgical site infection in shoulder and elbow surgery. Orthop Clin North Am. 2018;49:241–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ocl.2017.11.011.
8. Boyd J, Chmielewski R.Prevention of infection in foot and ankle surgery. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2019;36:37–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpm.2018.08.007.
9. Chang Y, Kennedy SA, Bhandari M, Lopes LC, Bergamaschi CC, de Silva MCDO, Bhatnagar N, Mousavi SM, Khurshid S, Petrisor B, Ren M, Sodhi SK, Mirza RD, Guyatt GH.Effects of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with open fracture of the extremities: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. JBJS Rev. 2015;3:e2. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.
RVW.N.00088.
10. Lamagni T, Elgohari S, Harrington P. Trends in surgical site infections following orthopaedic surgery. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2015;28:125–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/
QCO.0000000000000143.
11. Fang C, Wong T-M, Lau T-W, To KK, Wong SS, Leung F. Infection after fracture osteosynthesis—part I: pathogenesis, diagnosis and classication. J Orthop Surg. 2017;25:2309499017692712. https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499017692712.
12. Krasin E, Warschawski Y, Morgan S, Dekel M.Antibiotic prophylaxis in orthopedic surgery; has the time to reconsider the current practice arrived? J Orthop. 2022;32:68–71. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jor.2022.05.008.
13. Peel T, Astbury S, Cheng AC, Paterson D, Buising K, Spelman T, Tran-Duy A, de Steiger RS, ASAP Trial Group. Multicentre randomised double-blind placebo controlled trial of combination vancomycin and cefazolin surgical antibiotic prophylaxis: the Australian surgi­cal antibiotic prophylaxis (ASAP) trial. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e033718. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmjopen- 2019- 033718.
14. Beam E, Osmon D.Prosthetic joint infection update. Infect Dis Clin N Am. 2018;32:843–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idc.2018.06.005.
15. Dhammi IK, Ul Haq R, Kumar S.Prophylactic antibiotics in orthopedic surgery: controversial issues in its use. Indian J Orthop. 2015;49:373–6.
16. DeFrancesco CJ, Fu MC, Kahlenberg CA, Miller AO, Bostrom MP. Extended antibi­otic prophylaxis may be linked to lower peri-prosthetic joint infection rates in high-risk patients: an evidence- based review. HSS J. 2019;15:297–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11420- 019- 09698- 8.
17. Bryson DJ, Morris DLJ, Shivji FS, Rollins KR, Snape S, Ollivere BJ.Antibiotic prophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery: difcult decisions in an era of evolving antibiotic resistance. Bone Jt J. 2016;98-B:1014–9.
18. Bratzler DW, Houck PM, Workgroup SIPGW. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Am J Surg. 2005;189:395–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.01.015.
19. Isaac SM, Woods A, Danial IN, Mourkus H.Antibiotic prophylaxis in adults with open Tibial fractures: what is the evidence for duration of administration? A systematic review. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2016;55:146–50. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2015.07.012.
20. Gaudias J.Antibiotic prophylaxis in orthopedics-traumatology. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res OTSR. 2021;107:102751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2020.102751.
21. Garner MR, Sethuraman SA, Schade MA, Boateng H.Antibiotic prophylaxis in open frac­tures: evidence, evolving issues, and recommendations. JAAOS - J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020;28:309.
22. Villa JM, Pannu TS, Riesgo AM, Patel PD, Mont MA, Higuera-Rueda CA.Dual antibiotic prophylaxis in Total knee arthroplasty: where do we stand? J Knee Surg. 2020;33:100–5.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s- 0039- 1695742.
https://doi.org/10.1302/0301- 620X.98B8.37359.
https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS- D- 18- 00193.
https://doi.org/10.4103/0019- 5413.159556.
E. Krasin