Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Antimicrobial Agents in Orthopaedic Surgery

Prophylaxis and Treatment

  • Therapy in Practice
  • Published:
Drugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The pathogenesis of implant-associated infection involves interaction between the microorganisms (biofilm formation), the implant and the host. Despite improvement of perioperative prophylaxis, orthopaedic implants still remain highly susceptible to bacterial or fungal contamination, generally resulting in persistent implant-associated infection. Therefore, perioperative and life-long prevention of infection is important. For perioperative prophylaxis, a first- or second-generation cephalosporin is recommended, which should be administered between 60 and 30 minutes before incision. The duration of prophylaxis should not exceed 1 day. In centres with a low incidence of infection, a single dose is sufficient. Treatment of infections associated with orthopaedic devices usually requires appropriate surgical intervention combined with prolonged antimicrobial therapy. The choice of the antimicrobial regimen depends on the duration and pathogenesis of infection, stability of the implant, antimicrobial susceptibility of the pathogen and condition of the surrounding soft tissue. The role of rifampicin (rifampin), which has excellent activity on adherent staphylococci, in combination with β-lactams, glycopeptides, fluoroquinolones, minocycline, cotrimoxazole or fusidic acid, in the treatment of staphylococcal infections is outlined. Increasing antimicrobial resistance requires the use of alternative agents, such as quinupristin/dalfopristin, linezolid and daptomycin, but results of clinical trials with these agents are limited. Also reviewed are potential new antimicrobial agents currently undergoing investigation, such as the novel oxazolidinone RWJ-416457, the new glycopeptide dalbavancin, the glycylcycline compound tigecycline, the new carbacephem BP-102 and novel rifamycin derivatives. Vaccination against Staphylococcus aureus with StaphVAX® induced specific antibodies potentially preventing bacteraemia; however, there are no studies on efficacy in the prophylaxis of device-associated infections with this vaccine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.

References

  1. Darouiche RO. Treatment of infections associated with surgical implants. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 1422–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE. Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 1645–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. McGraw JM, Lim EV. Treatment of open tibial-shaft fractures: external fixation and secondary intramedullary nailing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1988; 70: 900–11

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Obremskey WT, Bhandari M, Dirschl DR, et al. Internal fixation versus arthroplasty of comminuted fractures of the distal humerus. J Orthop Trauma 2003; 17: 463–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Perren SM. Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures: the scientific basis of biological internal fixation: choosing a new balance between stability and biology. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84: 1093–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Raahave D. Postoperative wound infection after implant and removal of osteosynthetic material. Acta Orthop Scand 1976; 47: 28–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Zimmerli W. Antibiotic prophylaxis. In: Ruedi RP, Murphy WM, editors. AO Principles of fracture management. Stuttgart, Germany: Thieme, 2006. In press

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brause BD. Infections with prostheses in bones and joints. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, editors. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 6th ed. Washington, DC: WB Saunders, 2005: 1332–7

    Google Scholar 

  9. Darouiche RO. Device-associated infections: a macroproblem that starts with microadherence. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33: 1567–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Trampuz A, Osmon DR, Hanssen AD, et al. Molecular and antibiofilm approaches to prosthetic joint infection. Clin Orthop 2003; 414: 69–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP. Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science 1999; 284: 1318–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Stewart PS, Costerton JW. Antibiotic resistance of bacteria in biofilms. Lancet 2001; 358: 135–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Donlan RM. Biofilms: microbial life on surfaces. Emerg Infect Dis 2002; 8: 881–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zimmerli W, Waldvogel FA, Vaudaux P, et al. Pathogenesis of foreign body infection: description and characteristics of an animal model. J Infect Dis 1982; 146: 487–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Willenegger H, Roth B. Treatment tactics and late results in early infection following osteosynthesis [in German]. Unfallchirurgie 1986; 12: 241–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ochsner PE, Sirkin MS, Trampuz A. Acute infection. In: Ruedi RP, Murphy WM, editors. AO principles of fracture management [in press]. Stuttgart, Germany: Thieme, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  17. Arens S, Hansis M, Schlegel U, et al. Infection after open reduction and internal fixation with dynamic compression plates: clinical and experimental data. Injury 1996; 27 Suppl. 3: SC27–33

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Arens S, Kraft C, Schlegel U, et al. Susceptibility to local infection in biological internal fixation: experimental study of open vs minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis in rabbits. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1999; 119: 82–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Benson DR, Riggins RS, Lawrence RM, et al. Treatment of open fractures: a prospective study. J Trauma 1983; 23: 25–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Law MD, Stein RE. Late infection in healed fractures after open reduction and internal fixation. Orthop Rev 1993; 22: 545–52

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Murdoch DR, Roberts SA, Fowler JV, et al. Infection of orthopedic prostheses after Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32: 647–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Spangehl MJ, Masri BA, O’Connell JX, et al. Prospective analysis of preoperative and intraoperative investigations for the diagnosis of infection at the sites of two hundred and two revision total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999; 81: 672–83

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Widmer AF. New developments in diagnosis and treatment of infection in orthopedic implants. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33 Suppl. 2: 94–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Laffer RR, Graber P, Ochsner PE, et al. Outcome of prosthetic knee-associated infection: evaluation of 40 consecutive episodes of a single center. Clin Microbiol Infect 2006; 12: 433–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Giulieri SG, Graber P, Ochsner PE, et al. Management of infection associated with total hip arthroplasty according to a treatment algorithm. Infection 2004; 32: 222–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Trampuz A, Hanssen AD, Osmon DR, et al. Synovial fluid leukocyte count and differential for the diagnosis of prosthetic knee infection. Am J Med 2004; 117: 556–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. von Eiff C, Becker K, Machka K, et al. Nasal carriage as a source of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Study Group. N EnglJ Med 2001; 344: 11–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kalmeijer MD, Coertjens H, Nieuwland-Bollen PM, et al. Surgical site infections in orthopedic surgery: the effect of mupirocin nasal ointment in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 35: 353–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Perl TM, Cullen JJ, Wenzel RP, et al. Intranasal mupirocin to prevent postoperative Staphylococcus aureus infections. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 1871–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Elek SD, Conen PE. The virulence of Staphylococcus pyrogenes for man: a study of the problem of wound infection. Br J Exp Pathol 1957; 38: 573–86

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Zimmerli W, Lew PD, Waldvogel FA. Pathogenesis of foreign body infection: Evidence for a local granulocyte defect. J Clin Invest 1984; 73: 1191–200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kaiser AB. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. N Engl J Med 1986; 315: 1129–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Cruse PJ, Foord R. The epidemiology of wound infection: a 10-year prospective study of 62,939 wounds. Surg Clin North Am 1980; 60: 27–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Haas DW, Kaiser AB. Antimicrobial prophylaxis of infections associated with foreign bodies. In: Bisno AL, Waldvogel FA, editors. Infections associated with indwelling medical devices. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology, 2000: 395–406

    Google Scholar 

  35. Dellinger EP, Gross PA, Barrett TL, et al. Quality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. The Infectious Diseases Society of America. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994; 15: 182–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Gustilo RB, Mendoza RM, Williams DN. Problems in the management of type III (severe) open fractures: a new classification of type III open fractures. J Trauma 1984; 24: 742–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Marculescu CE, Berbari EF, Hanssen AD, et al. Outcome of prosthetic joint infections treated with debridement and retention of components. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42: 471–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Chin NX, Neu NM, Neu HC. Activity of cephalosporins against coagulase-negative staphylococci. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1990; 13: 67–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Anon. Recommendations for preventing the spread of vancomycin resistance. Recommendations of the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). MMWR Recomm Rep 1995; 44: 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  40. Suter F, Avai A, Fusco U, et al. Teicoplanin versus cefamandole in the prevention of infection in total hip replacement. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1994; 13: 793–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Burke JP. The effective period of preventive antibiotic action in experimental incisions and dermal lesions. Surgery 1961; 50: 161–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Classen DC, Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, et al. The timing of prophylactic administration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical-wound infection. N Engl J Med 1992; 326: 281–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Widmer AF, Weber W, Reck N, et al. <30 Minutes before incision is too late: new insights for timing of antimicrobial prophylaxis from 4557 patients [abstract]. 45th ICAAC, American Society for Microbiology; 2005 Dec 16–19; Washington, DC. 2005; K-1370

  44. Friedman RJ, Friedrich LV, White RL, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis and tourniquet inflation in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; (260): 17–23

  45. Oishi CS, Carrion WV, Hoaglund FT. Use of parenteral prophylactic antibiotics in clean orthopaedic surgery: a review of the literature. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993; (296): 249–55

  46. Hill C, Flamant R, Mazas F, et al. Prophylactic cefazolin versus placebo in total hip replacement: report of a multicentre double-blind randomised trial. Lancet 1981; I: 795–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Gatell JM, Riba J, Lozano ML, et al. Prophylactic cefamandole in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984; 66: 1219–22

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Bodoky A, Neff U, Heberer M, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis with two doses of cephalosporin in patients managed with internal fixation for a fracture of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993; 75: 61–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Paiement GD, Renaud E, Dagenais G, et al. Double-blind randomized prospective study of the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for open reduction and internal fixation of closed ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma 1994; 8: 64–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. 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: 1133–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Gillespie WJ, Walenkamp G. Antibiotic prophylaxis for surgery for proximal femoral and other closed long bone fractures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; (1): CD000244

  52. Nelson CL, Green TG, Porter RA, et al. One day versus seven days of preventive antibiotic therapy in orthopedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1983; (176): 258–63

  53. Gatell JM, Garcia S, Lozano L, et al. Perioperative cefamandole prophylaxis against infections. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987; 69: 1189–93

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Wymenga A, van Horn J, Theeuwes A, et al. Cefuroxime for prevention of postoperative coxitis: one versus three doses tested in a randomized multicenter study of 2,651 arthroplasties. Acta Orthop Scand 1992; 63: 19–24

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Mauerhan DR, Nelson CL, Smith DL, et al. Prophylaxis against infection in total joint arthroplasty: one day of cefuroxime compared with three days of cefazolin. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994; 76: 39–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Nungu KS, Olerud C, Rehnberg L, et al. Prophylaxis with oral cefadroxil versus intravenous cefuroxime in trochanteric fracture surgery: a clinical multicentre study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1995; 114: 303–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Patzakis MJ, Harvey JP, Ivler D. The role of antibiotics in the management of open fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1974; 56: 532–41

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Braun R, Enzler MA, Rittmann WW. A double-blind clinical trial of prophylactic cloxacillin in open fractures. J Orthop Trauma 1987; 1: 12–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Tscherne H, Oestern HJ, Sturm J. Osteosynthesis of major fractures in polytrauma. World J Surg 1983; 7: 80–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Zimmerli W, Widmer AF, Blatter M, et al. Role of rifampin for treatment of orthopedic implant-related staphylococcal infections: a randomized controlled trial. Foreign-Body Infection (FBI) Study Group. JAMA 1998; 279: 1537–41

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Razonable RR, Osmon DR, Steckelberg JM. Linezolid therapy for orthopedic infections. Mayo Clin Proc 2004; 79: 1137–44

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Raad I, Darouiche R, Vazquez J, et al. Efficacy and safety of weekly dalbavancin therapy for catheter-related bloodstream infection caused by gram-positive pathogens. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 40: 374–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Lin G, Credite K, Ednie LM, et al. Antistaphylococcal activity of dalbavancin, an experimental glycopeptide. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005; 49: 770–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Darouiche RO, Mansouri MD. Dalbavancin compared with vancomycin for prevention of Staphylococcus aureus colonization of devices in vivo. J Infect 2005; 50: 206–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Southwood RT, Rice JL, McDonald PJ, et al. Infection in experimental hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1985; 67: 229–31

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Ahlberg A, Carlsson AS, Lindberg L. Hematogenous infection in total joint replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1978; (137): 69–75

  67. Blomgren G, Lindgren U. Late hematogenous infection in total joint replacement: studies of gentamicin and bone cement in the rabbit. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1981; (155): 244–8

  68. Blomgren G. Hematogenous infection of total joint replacement: an experimental study in the rabbit. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 1981; 187: 1–64

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Zimmerli W, Zak O, Vosbeck K. Experimental hematogenous infection of subcutaneously implanted foreign bodies. Scand J Infect Dis 1985; 17: 303–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Kaandorp CJ, Dinant HJ, van de Laar MA, et al. Incidence and sources of native and prosthetic joint infection: a community based prospective survey. Ann Rheum Dis 1997; 56: 470–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Steckelberg JM, Osmon DR. Prosthetic joint infection. In: Bisno AL, Waldvogel FA, editors. Infections associated with indwelling medical devices. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology, 2000: 173–209

    Google Scholar 

  72. Maderazo EG, Judson S, Pasternak H. Late infections of total joint prostheses: a review and recommendations for prevention. Clin Orthop 1988; (229): 131–42

  73. Bartzokas CA, Johnson R, Jane M, et al. Relation between mouth and haematogenous infection in total joint replacements. BMJ 1994; 309: 506–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Jacobsen PL, Murray W. Prophylactic coverage of dental patients with artificial joints: a retrospective analysis of thirtythree infections in hip prostheses. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1980; 50: 130–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Pallasch TJ, Wahl MJ. Focal infection: new age or ancient history. Endodontic Topics 2003; 4: 32–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Antibiotic prophylaxis for dental patients with total joint replacements (Doc. No. - 1014) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.aaos.org/wordhtml/papers/advistmt/1014.htm [Accessed 2006 Mar 30]

  77. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Antibiotic prophylaxis for urological patients with total joint replacements (Doc. No. - 1023) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.aaos.org/wordhtml/papers/advistmt/1023.htm [Accessed 2006 Mar 30]

  78. Shinefield H, Black S, Fattom A, et al. Use of a Staphylococcus aureus conjugate vaccine in patients receiving hemodialysis. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 491–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Clarke SR, Brummell KJ, Horsburgh MJ, et al. Identification of in vivo-expressed antigens of Staphylococcus aureus and their use in vaccinations for protection against nasal carriage. J Infect Dis 2006; 193: 1098–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Trampuz A, Zimmerli W. Diagnosis and treatment of infections associated with fracture fixation devices. Injury 2006; 37 Sup-pl. 2: S55–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Zimmerli W, Ochsner PE. Management of infection associated with prosthetic joints. Infection 2003; 31: 99–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Widmer AF, Gaechter A, Ochsner PE, et al. Antimicrobial treatment of orthopedic implant-related infections with rifampin combinations. Clin Infect Dis 1992; 14: 1251–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Widmer AF, Frei R, Rajacic Z, et al. Correlation between in vivo and in vitro efficacy of antimicrobial agents against foreign body infections. J Infect Dis 1990; 162: 96–102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Zimmerli W, Frei R, Widmer AF, et al. Microbiological tests to predict treatment outcome in experimental device-related infections due to Staphylococcus aureus. J Antimicrob Chemother 1994; 33: 959–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Schwank S, Rajacic Z, Zimmerli W, et al. Impact of bacterial biofilm formation on in vitro and in vivo activities of antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42: 895–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Ure KJ, Amstutz HC, Nasser S, et al. Direct-exchange arthroplasty for the treatment of infection after total hip replacement: an average ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998; 80: 961–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Hope PG, Kristinsson KG, Norman P, et al. Deep infection of cemented total hip arthroplasties caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1989; 71: 851–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Raut VV, Siney PD, Wroblewski BM. One-stage revision of infected total hip replacements with discharging sinuses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1994; 76: 721–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Callaghan JJ, Katz RP, Johnston RC. One-stage revision surgery of the infected hip: a minimum 10-year followup study. Clin Orthop 1999; (369): 139–43

  90. Langlais F. Can we improve the results of revision arthroplasty for infected total hip replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003; 85: 637–40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Westrich GH, Salvati EA, Brause B. Postoperative infection. In: Bono JV, McCarty JC, Thornhill TS, et al., editors. Revision total hip arthroplasty. 1st ed. New York (NY): Springer, 1999: 371–90

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  92. Windsor RE, Insall JN, Urs WK, et al. Two-stage reimplantation for the salvage of total knee arthroplasty complicated by infection: further follow-up and refinement of indications. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990; 72: 272–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Colyer RA, Capello WN. Surgical treatment of the infected hip implant: two-stage reimplantation with a one-month interval. Clin Orthop 1994; (298): 75–9

  94. Drancourt M, Stein A, Argenson JN, et al. Oral treatment of Staphylococcus spp. infected orthopaedic implants with fusidic acid or ofloxacin in combination with rifampicin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997; 39: 235–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Trebse R, Pisot V, Trampuz A. Treatment of infected retained implants. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87B: 249–56

    Google Scholar 

  96. Kasiakou SK, Sermaides GJ, Michalopoulos A, et al. Continuous versus intermittent intravenous administration of antibiotics: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet Infect Dis 2005; 5: 581–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Shirtliff ME, Calhoun JH, Mader JT. Comparative evaluation of oral levofloxacin and parenteral nafcillin in the treatment of experimental methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus osteomyelitis in rabbits. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 48: 253–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Vaudaux P, Francois P, Bisognano C, et al. Comparison of levofloxacin, alatrofloxacin, and vancomycin for prophylaxis and treatment of experimental foreign-body-associated infection by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002; 46: 1503–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Greenberg RN, Newman MT, Shariaty S, et al. Ciprofloxacin, lomefloxacin, or levofloxacin as treatment for chronic osteomyelitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44: 164–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Frippiat F, Meunier F, Derue G. Place of newer quinolones and rifampicin in the treatment of Gram-positive bone and joint infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; J Antimicrob Chemother 2004 Dec; 54(6): 1158

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Yew WW, Chan CK, Leung CC, et al. Comparative roles of levofloxacin and ofloxacin in the treatment of multidrugresistant tuberculosis: preliminary results of a retrospective study from Hong Kong. Chest 2003; 124: 1476–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Drancourt M, Stein A, Argenson JN, et al. Oral rifampin plus ofloxacin for treatment of Staphylococcus-infected orthopedic implants. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 1214–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Stein A, Bataille JF, Drancourt M, et al. Ambulatory treatment of multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus-infected orthopedic implants with high-dose oral co-trimoxazole (trimethoprimsulfamethoxazole). Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42: 3086–91

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Widmer AF, Wiestner A, Frei R, et al. Killing of nongrowing and adherent Escherichia coli determines drug efficacy in device-related infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 741–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Saleh-Mghir A, Ameur N, Muller-Serieys C, et al. Combination of quinupristin-dalfopristin (Synercid) and rifampin is highly synergistic in experimental Staphylococcus aureus joint prosthesis infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002; 46: 1122–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Drew RH, Perfect JR, Srinath L, et al. Treatment of methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus infections with quinupristindalfopristin in patients intolerant of or failing prior therapy: for the Synercid Emergency-Use Study Group. J Antimicrob Chemother 2000; 46: 775–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Jacqueline C, Caillon J, Le M, et al. In vitro activity of linezolid alone and in combination with gentamicin, vancomycin or rifampicin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by time-kill curve methods. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 51: 857–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Foleno BD, Goldschmidt RM, Flamm R, et al. In vitro antibacterial activity of the pyrrolopyrazolyl-substituted oxazolidinone RWJ-416457 [abstract]. 45th ICAAC, American Society for Microbiology; 2005 Dec 16–19; Washington, DC. 2005: F-1244

  109. Hilliard JJ, Melton J, Fernandez J, et al. In vivo activity of the novel oxazolidinone RWJ-416457 [abstract]. 45th ICAAC, American Society for Microbiology; 2005 Dec 16–19; Washington, DC. 2005; F-1247

  110. Tedesco KL, Rybak MJ. Daptomycin. Pharmacotherapy 2004; 24: 41–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Carpenter CF, Chambers HF. Daptomycin: another novel agent for treating infections due to drug-resistant gram-positive pathogens. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38: 994–1000

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Finney MS, Crank CW, Segreti J. Use of daptomycin to treat drug-resistant Gram-positive bone and joint infections. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 21: 1923–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Blaser J, Vergeres P, Widmer AF, et al. In vivo verification of in vitro model of antibiotic treatment of device-related infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995; 39: 1134–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Rand KH, Houck H. Daptomycin synergy with rifampicin and ampicillin against vancomycin-resistant enterococci. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 53: 530–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Rand KH, Houck HJ. Synergy of daptomycin with oxacillin and other beta-lactams against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 48: 2871–5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Hayden MK, Rezai K, Hayes RA, et al. Development of daptomycin resistance in vivo in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Microbiol 2005; 43: 5285–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Jones RN, Biedenbach DJ, Johnson DM, et al. In vitro evaluation of BI 397, a novel glycopeptide antimicrobial agent. J Chemother 2001; 13: 244–54

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Pankey GA. Tigecycline. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 56: 470–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  119. Rubinstein E, Vaughan D. Tigecycline: a novel glycylcycline. Drugs 2005; 65: 1317–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Appelbaum PC, Jacobs MR. Recently approved and investigational antibiotics for treatment of severe infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria. Curr Opin Microbiol 2005; 8: 510–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  121. Labthavikul P, Petersen PJ, Bradford PA. In vitro activity of tigecycline against Staphylococcus epidermidis growing in an adherent-cell biofilm model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47: 3967–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. Yin LY, Lazzarini L, Li F, et al. Comparative evaluation of tigecycline and vancomycin, with and without rifampicin, in the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus experimental osteomyelitis in a rabbit model. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 55: 995–1002

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  123. Madsen D, Blais J, Park C, et al. In vitro profiling of the new carbacephem BP-102 [abstract]. 45th ICAAC, American Society for Microbiology; 2005 Dec 16–19; Washington, DC. 2005; F-1456

  124. Craig WA, Andes DR, Dudley M, et al. In vivo activity of BP-102, a new carbacephem, against methicillin-susceptible and — resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA and MRSA) in the thighs of neutropenic mice [abstract]. 45th ICAAC, American Society for Microbiology; 2005 Dec 16–19; Washington, DC. 2005; F-1166

  125. Trampuz A, Zimmerli W, Murphy CK, et al. Efficacy of novel rifamycin ABI-0043 against Staphylococcus aureus in a foreign-body infection model. 45th ICAAC, American Society for Microbiology; 2005 Dec 16–19; Washington, DC. 2005: LB-6

  126. Rothstein DM, Mullin S, Sirokman K, et al. Novel rifamycin derivatives possess good in vivo efficacy in a rifamycinresistant Staphylococcus aureus infection model [abstract]. 44th ICAAC, American Society for Microbiology; 2004 Oct 30–Nov 2; Washington, DC. 2004: F-365

  127. Rothstein DM, Farquhar R, Sorokman K, et al. In vivo efficacy of novel rifamycin compounds against wild type and rifampinresistant Staphylococcus aureus strains [abstract]. 45th ICAAC, American Society for Microbiology; 2005 Dec 16–19; Washington, DC. 2005: F-2045

  128. Murphy CK, Mullin S, Osburne MS, et al. In vitro activity of novel rifamycins against rifamycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50: 827–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors received a grant from ActivBiotics, Lexington, MA, USA, for testing a new rifamycin derivation (ABI-0043).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland

    Andrej Trampuz

  2. Basel University Medical Clinic, Kantonsspital, CH-4410, Liestal, Switzerland

    Werner Zimmerli

Authors
  1. Andrej Trampuz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Werner Zimmerli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Werner Zimmerli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Trampuz, A., Zimmerli, W. Antimicrobial Agents in Orthopaedic Surgery. Drugs 66, 1089–1106 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200666080-00005

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200666080-00005

Keywords

Search

Navigation