Orthopedic surgery related infections; study of antibiotic resistance and associated comorbidities

Mihnea Popa 1 , 2 , Bogdan Şerban 1 , 2 , Alexandru Lupu 1 , 2 , Georgian Iacobescu 1 , 2 , and Adrian Cursaru 1 , 2
  • 1 “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, , Bucharest, Romania
  • 2 University Emergency Hospital Bucharest, , Romania


Interventions in the field of orthopedics and traumatology involve more and more the frequent use of osteosynthesis materials and prostheses. Therefore, an increasing number of patients live with these implants, having an increased risk in comparison to the general population to develop complications. Although technological developments have brought this change for the better, it must not be forgotten that these foreign materials come with certain risks, the most feared being the associated infections.

For this article, we conducted an epidemiological study on infections identified in patients treated in the Orthopedics and Traumatology Department of University Emergency Hospital in Bucharest, from 01.01.2016 to 01.06.2019. We were able to extract data about patients without neglecting their confidentiality.

The information sought, primarily involved the pathogen causing the infection and its antibiogram, but at the same time we tried to build a more accurate history of each patient in order to determine the cause of infection and the risks posed by various associated pathologies. During these 4 years we were able to identify 139 patients who suffered an infection in the musculoskeletal system. In most cases we identified unimicrobial infections, but there were 7 cases in which two pathogens were identified.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Cooper R. Surgical site infections: epidemiology and microbiological aspects in trauma and orthopaedic surgery. International World Journal. 2013; 10(suppl.1):3-8.

  • 2. Moriarty T, Kuehl R, Coenye T et al. Orthopaedic device-related infection: current and future interventions for improved prevention and treatment. Effort Open Reviews. 2016; 1:89-99.

  • 3. Boxma H, Broekhuizen T, Patka P et al. Randomised controlled trial of single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in surgical treatment of closed fractures: the Dutch Trauma Trial. Lancet. 1996; 347(9009):1133-7.

  • 4. Krutz SM, Lau E, Schmier J et al. Infection burden for hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 2008; 23:984-91.

  • 5. Kock R, Becker K, Cookson B et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): burden of disease and control challenges in Europe. Euro Surveill. 2010; 15:19688.

  • 6. Torbert JT, Joshi M, Moraff A et al. Current bacterial speciation and antibiotic resistance in deep infections after operative fixation of fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2015; 29:7-17.

  • 7. Broekema NM, Van TT, Monson TA et al. Comparison of cefoxitin and oxacillin disk diffusion methods for detection of mecA-mediated resistance in Staphylococcus aureus in a large-scale study. J Clin Microbiol. 2009; 47(1):217–9.

  • 8. Cherian J, Lobo J, Ramesh L. A comparative study of Bacteriologica culture results using swab and tissue in open fractures: a pilot study. Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports. 2019; 9(1):33-36.

  • 9. Wafa H, Grimer RJ, Reddy K et al. Retrospective evaluation of the incidence of early periprosthetic infection with silver-treated endoprostheses in high-risk patients: case control study. Bone Joint J. 2015; 97B:252-7.

  • 10. Pogue JM, Kaye KS, Cohen DA et al. Appropriate antimicrobial therapy in the era of multidrug-resistant human pathogens. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015; 21(4):302–12.


Journal + Issues