Survey reports current antibiotic prophylaxis practices in Turkey to inform about infection prevention strategies.
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a major complication after primary arthroplasty. We descriptively assessed current perioperative prophylaxis and infection-prevention practices in Türkiye by benchmarking reported practices against guideline recommendations and describing areas of variability that may warrant further evaluation. In this anonymous, open web-based descriptive cross-sectional survey distributed through professional networks in Türkiye (December 2025–January 2026), orthopedic and traumatology specialists reported their professional profile, systemic prophylaxis practices, and preoperative/perioperative preventive measures. Analyses were descriptive (counts, percentages). A total of 278 specialists participated. Cefazolin was the first-choice prophylactic agent (100%); in β-lactam allergy, clindamycin was most preferred (73.4%). For MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) colonization, 50.4% reported adding a glycopeptide. Initial cefazolin dosing was mostly within 60 min before incision (98.2%). Nevertheless, 53.6% extended prophylaxis beyond 24 h, 57.2% continued antibiotics until drain removal, and 62.2% prescribed oral antibiotics at discharge. Only 46.0% reported a written institutional prophylaxis protocol. Routine MRSA and MSSA (methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus) screening rates were low (19.4% and 15.1%), while asymptomatic bacteriuria screening remained high (50.0%). Preoperative bathing was recommended by 70.9%; hair removal was mainly performed with electric clippers (92.8%), usually immediately preoperatively (72.3%). Antibacterial suture use was low (9.0%), whereas antibiotic-loaded bone cement use was common (64.7%). Reported practice appeared to align with guideline recommendations for agent selection and first-dose timing, but variability was observed in prophylaxis duration, drain/discharge-related decisions, screening-decolonization workflows, and local preventive strategies. Given the voluntary open web-based sampling strategy, unknown denominator and response rate, descriptive design, and absence of outcome correlation, these findings should be interpreted only as self-reported practices among respondents, not as representative estimates of national practice or evidence supporting practice change. Further studies with defined sampling frames, audit-based practice verification, and joint-specific outcomes are needed to evaluate how these reported variations relate to actual practice and clinical outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sarıtaş et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: