Key result
Contaminated allografts were associated with a significantly higher infection rate compared to sterile allografts (10% vs. 1.15%, p<0.01) in patients undergoing musculoskeletal allografting.
Why the study?
Does the use of contaminated musculoskeletal allografts increase the rate of healthcare-associated infections compared to sterile allografts in transplant recipients?
Cohort (n=3,193)
No
Does the use of contaminated musculoskeletal allografts increase the rate of healthcare-associated infections compared to sterile allografts in transplant recipients?
Absolute Event Rate: 10% vs 1.15%
p-value: p=<0.01
While contaminated musculoskeletal allografts have a higher infection rate than sterile ones, strict processing and prophylactic antibiotics can prevent disease transmission, and positive after-thawing cultures poorly predict the actual infecting pathogen.
Musculoskeletal allografts are now commonly used. To decrease the potential risks of transmission of pathogenic bacteria, fungi, or viruses to the transplant recipients, certain issues regarding the management of patients who receive contaminated allografts need to be addressed. We aimed to clarify the incidence and extent of disease transmission from allografts by analyzing the allografting procedures performed in the bone bank of our hospital over the past 20 years. We retrospectively reviewed the data from our allograft registry center on 3979 allografts that were implanted in 3193 recipients throughout a period of two decades, from July 1991 to June 2011. The source of the allografts, results of all screening tests, dates of harvesting and implantation, and recipients of all allografts were checked. With the help of the Center for Infection Control of our hospital, a strict prospective, hospital-wide, on-site surveillance was conducted, and every patient with healthcare-associated infection was identified. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the infection rate between recipients with sterile allografts and those with contaminated allografts. The overall discard and infection rates were, respectively, 23% and 1.3% in the first decade (1991-2001); and 18.4% and 1.25% in the second decade (2001-2011). The infection rate of contaminated allograft recipients was significantly higher than that of sterile allograft recipients (10% vs. 1.15%, P < 0.01) in the second decade. Both infection and discard rates of our bone bank are comparable with those of international bone banks. Strict allograft processing and adequate prophylactic use of antibiotics are critical to prevent infection and disease transmission in such cases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fu et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Patients receiving musculoskeletal allografts (n=3,193). Contaminated allografts vs. Sterile allografts was evaluated on Infection rate (p=<0.01). Contaminated allografts were associated with a significantly higher infection rate compared to sterile allografts (10% vs. 1.15%, p<0.01) in patients undergoing musculoskeletal allografting.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: