User login
Analyzing the Guidelines: It Can't All Be Level I
The demand for total joint arthroplasty continues to rise, resulting in a steady increase in the number of primary total hip and knee replacements every year. Unfortunately, as these numbers rise, so will the number of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). The economic burden and patient morbidity associated with PJI has resulted in the creation of multiple orthopedic societies and committees focused on formulating “best practice” guidelines in order to reduce the rates of PJI as much as possible.
The new guidelines for surgical site infection (SSI) prevention by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently forced the orthopedic community to critically analyze the current literature. Dr. Javad Parvizi’s editorial elegantly notes that many areas of infection prevention and treatment are not well evaluated, and many of our day-to-day practices are based on low levels of evidence. Level I studies continue to be a costly and time-consuming challenge due to the already very low SSI rate, and, in order to show an improvement in this rate, thousands of patients are required for study. This makes a multicenter approach necessary to ensure adequate power, and a multicenter study often requires significant resources and funding outlets. These requirements have resulted in many of our practice recommendations being based on retrospective reviews, which have inherent methodological limitations. The retrospective nature of these studies lacks the experimental design necessary to confidently make treatment recommendations; however, they do allow us to look at what strategies have been tried, and in essence, how well they worked. Although level III and IV studies do not allow us to compare treatments head to head, they do give us some insights into viable treatment strategies and should not be completely disregarded. The results of retrospective studies allow us to design prospective experiments based on what we have observed as successful treatment modalities in particular patient cohorts.
An alternative approach for evaluating new and existing treatment strategies is through basic science translational research. Future advancements in PJI diagnosis and treatment will likely be founded upon translational research efforts from clinician scientists testing treatment protocols both on the benchtop and in animal models. The most glaring knowledge gaps in PJI should be identified through the combined efforts of the CDC, the Musculoskeletal Infection Society, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and the Orthopaedic Research Society. Coordinated efforts should be made and strategies executed to systematically fund translational projects that answer these questions. Translational studies will be able to safely and methodically evaluate new and even established treatment protocols for PJI in a cost-effective manner.
We have made great strides in the prevention and treatment of PJI over the past 2 decades. When working together as a cohesive profession, we will undoubtedly continue to advance our knowledge base and improve treatment recommendations for our patients.
Analyzing the Guidelines: It Can't All Be Level I
The demand for total joint arthroplasty continues to rise, resulting in a steady increase in the number of primary total hip and knee replacements every year. Unfortunately, as these numbers rise, so will the number of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). The economic burden and patient morbidity associated with PJI has resulted in the creation of multiple orthopedic societies and committees focused on formulating “best practice” guidelines in order to reduce the rates of PJI as much as possible.
The new guidelines for surgical site infection (SSI) prevention by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently forced the orthopedic community to critically analyze the current literature. Dr. Javad Parvizi’s editorial elegantly notes that many areas of infection prevention and treatment are not well evaluated, and many of our day-to-day practices are based on low levels of evidence. Level I studies continue to be a costly and time-consuming challenge due to the already very low SSI rate, and, in order to show an improvement in this rate, thousands of patients are required for study. This makes a multicenter approach necessary to ensure adequate power, and a multicenter study often requires significant resources and funding outlets. These requirements have resulted in many of our practice recommendations being based on retrospective reviews, which have inherent methodological limitations. The retrospective nature of these studies lacks the experimental design necessary to confidently make treatment recommendations; however, they do allow us to look at what strategies have been tried, and in essence, how well they worked. Although level III and IV studies do not allow us to compare treatments head to head, they do give us some insights into viable treatment strategies and should not be completely disregarded. The results of retrospective studies allow us to design prospective experiments based on what we have observed as successful treatment modalities in particular patient cohorts.
An alternative approach for evaluating new and existing treatment strategies is through basic science translational research. Future advancements in PJI diagnosis and treatment will likely be founded upon translational research efforts from clinician scientists testing treatment protocols both on the benchtop and in animal models. The most glaring knowledge gaps in PJI should be identified through the combined efforts of the CDC, the Musculoskeletal Infection Society, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and the Orthopaedic Research Society. Coordinated efforts should be made and strategies executed to systematically fund translational projects that answer these questions. Translational studies will be able to safely and methodically evaluate new and even established treatment protocols for PJI in a cost-effective manner.
We have made great strides in the prevention and treatment of PJI over the past 2 decades. When working together as a cohesive profession, we will undoubtedly continue to advance our knowledge base and improve treatment recommendations for our patients.
Analyzing the Guidelines: It Can't All Be Level I
The demand for total joint arthroplasty continues to rise, resulting in a steady increase in the number of primary total hip and knee replacements every year. Unfortunately, as these numbers rise, so will the number of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). The economic burden and patient morbidity associated with PJI has resulted in the creation of multiple orthopedic societies and committees focused on formulating “best practice” guidelines in order to reduce the rates of PJI as much as possible.
The new guidelines for surgical site infection (SSI) prevention by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently forced the orthopedic community to critically analyze the current literature. Dr. Javad Parvizi’s editorial elegantly notes that many areas of infection prevention and treatment are not well evaluated, and many of our day-to-day practices are based on low levels of evidence. Level I studies continue to be a costly and time-consuming challenge due to the already very low SSI rate, and, in order to show an improvement in this rate, thousands of patients are required for study. This makes a multicenter approach necessary to ensure adequate power, and a multicenter study often requires significant resources and funding outlets. These requirements have resulted in many of our practice recommendations being based on retrospective reviews, which have inherent methodological limitations. The retrospective nature of these studies lacks the experimental design necessary to confidently make treatment recommendations; however, they do allow us to look at what strategies have been tried, and in essence, how well they worked. Although level III and IV studies do not allow us to compare treatments head to head, they do give us some insights into viable treatment strategies and should not be completely disregarded. The results of retrospective studies allow us to design prospective experiments based on what we have observed as successful treatment modalities in particular patient cohorts.
An alternative approach for evaluating new and existing treatment strategies is through basic science translational research. Future advancements in PJI diagnosis and treatment will likely be founded upon translational research efforts from clinician scientists testing treatment protocols both on the benchtop and in animal models. The most glaring knowledge gaps in PJI should be identified through the combined efforts of the CDC, the Musculoskeletal Infection Society, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and the Orthopaedic Research Society. Coordinated efforts should be made and strategies executed to systematically fund translational projects that answer these questions. Translational studies will be able to safely and methodically evaluate new and even established treatment protocols for PJI in a cost-effective manner.
We have made great strides in the prevention and treatment of PJI over the past 2 decades. When working together as a cohesive profession, we will undoubtedly continue to advance our knowledge base and improve treatment recommendations for our patients.
