Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · VCOT Open 2025; 08(01): e13-e20
DOI: 10.1055/a-2506-0553
Case Report

Use of Simini Protect Lavage as an Adjuvant in the Antiseptic Protocol for Revision Surgeries Involving Total Hip Replacement

Ida Forzisi
1   Surgical Department, Clinica Veterinaria Vezzoni, Cremona, Italy
,
Luca Vezzoni
1   Surgical Department, Clinica Veterinaria Vezzoni, Cremona, Italy
,
Milo Bozzerla
2   Surgical Deparment, AniCura - Clinica Veterinaria Malpensa, Samarate, Italy
,
Aldo Vezzoni 
1   Surgical Department, Clinica Veterinaria Vezzoni, Cremona, Italy
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives Despite advances in surgical asepsis and improvements in sterile surgical techniques, surgical site infection occurs in 0.8 to 15.8% of surgical wounds. Most infections are caused by microorganisms forming biofilms that adhere to implants or dead bone and can evade host immunity and antimicrobial agents. Simini Protect Lavage (SPL) is a hypertonic aqueous solution designed to break cross-links within the extracellular polymeric substance of biofilms produced by bacteria. This study aimed to report the outcome of our total hip replacement (THR) revision cases using an SPL in addition to our standard antiseptic protocol.

Methods The medical records of patients at Vezzoni Veterinary Clinic were searched for animals undergoing a revision orthopaedic surgery involving a THR that included the use of SPL. In all patients, a minimum of 1-year follow-up and culture and a sensitivity test pre- and post-Simini Lavage were required.

Results SPL was used in 36 cases. At the beginning of surgery, culture and sensitive tests were positive in eight patients, and at the end of surgery, seven dogs were still positive for bacterial infection. Only one case, which experienced three revision surgeries, underwent explantation due to persistent, clinically evident infection. The other dogs showed neither clinical nor X-ray signs of infection over a long period.

Clinical Significance The use of SPL can be considered as an adjuvant in the antiseptic protocol for the one-stage revision THR surgeries without a plan of prosthesis explanation. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to objectively evaluate the efficacy of SPL in eradicating the postoperative infections.

Keywords

infections - surgical site infection - revision surgery - intraoperative antiseptic lavage

Author's Contribution

A.V. and I.F. contributed to the conception of the study. A.V., I.F., L.V., and M.B. contributed to the study design, acquisition of data, data analysis, and interpretation. All authors drafted, revised, and approved the submitted manuscript.




Publication History

Received: 30 June 2024

Accepted: 15 December 2024

Article published online:
20 January 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Vasseur PB, Paul HA, Enos LR, Hirsh DC. Infection rates in clean surgical procedures: a comparison of ampicillin prophylaxis vs a placebo. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1985; 187 (08) 825-827
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Johnston SA, Tobias KM. Veterinary Surgery Small Animal. Elsevier; 2018: 148-155
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Turk R, Singh A, Weese JS. Prospective surgical site infection surveillance in dogs. Vet Surg 2015; 44 (01) 2-8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Nelson LL. Surgical site infections in small animal surgery. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2011; 41 (05) 1041-1056 , viii
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Weese JS. A review of post-operative infections in veterinary orthopaedic surgery. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21 (02) 99-105
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Frey TN, Hoelzler MG, Scavelli TD, Fulcher RP, Bastian RP. Risk factors for surgical site infection-inflammation in dogs undergoing surgery for rupture of the cranial cruciate ligament: 902 cases (2005-2006). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2010; 236 (01) 88-94
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Beal MW, Brown DC, Shofer FS. The effects of perioperative hypothermia and the duration of anesthesia on postoperative wound infection rate in clean wounds: a retrospective study. Vet Surg 2000; 29 (02) 123-127
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Paul HA, Bargar WL. A modified technique for canine total hip replacement. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1987; 23: 13-18
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Olmstead ML. Total hip replacement. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1987; 17 (04) 943-955
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Olmstead ML. The canine cemented modular total hip prosthesis. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1995; 31 (02) 109-124
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Vezzoni L, Vezzoni A, Boudrieau RJ. Long-term outcome of Zurich cementless total hip arthroplasty in 439 cases. Vet Surg 2015; 44 (08) 921-929
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Christopher ZK, Deckey DG, Pollock JR, Spangehl MJ. Antiseptic irrigation solutions used in total joint arthroplasty: a critical analysis review. JBJS Rev 2022;10(03):
    PubMed
  • 13 Ireifej S, Marino DJ, Loughin CA, Lesser ML, Akerman M. Risk factors and clinical relevance of positive intraoperative bacterial cultures in dogs with total hip replacement. Vet Surg 2012; 41 (01) 63-68
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Senthi S, Munro JT, Pitto RP. Infection in total hip replacement: meta-analysis. Int Orthop 2011; 35 (02) 253-260
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Dyce J, Olmstead ML. Removal of infected canine cemented total hip prostheses using a femoral window technique. Vet Surg 2002; 31 (06) 552-560
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Zimmerli W, Sendi P. Orthopaedic biofilm infections. APMIS 2017; 125 (04) 353-364
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Stoodley P, Ehrlich GD, Sedghizadeh PP. et al. Orthopaedic biofilm infections. Curr Orthop Pract 2011; 22 (06) 558-563
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Davies D. Understanding biofilm resistance to antibacterial agents. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2003; 2 (02) 114-122
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Perencevich EN, Sands KE, Cosgrove SE, Guadagnoli E, Meara E, Platt R. Health and economic impact of surgical site infections diagnosed after hospital discharge. Emerg Infect Dis 2003; 9 (02) 196-203
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Costerton JW, Geesey GG, Cheng KJ. How bacteria stick. Sci Am 1978; 238 (01) 86-95
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Costerton JW, Lewandowski Z, Caldwell DE, Korber DR, Lappin-Scott HM. Microbial biofilms. Annu Rev Microbiol 1995; 49: 711-745
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Mack D, Becker P, Chatterjee I. et al. Functional molecules, regulatory circuits, and adaptive responses are mechanisms of biofilm formation in Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus . Int J Med Microbiol 2004; 294: 203-212
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Ramage G, Mowat E, Jones B, Williams C, Lopez-Ribot J. Our current understanding of fungal biofilms. Crit Rev Microbiol 2009; 35 (04) 340-355
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Wei Q, Ma LZ. Biofilm matrix and its regulation in Pseudomonas aeruginosa . Int J Mol Sci 2013; 14 (10) 20983-21005
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Palková Z, Váchová L. Life within a community: benefit to yeast long-term survival. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2006; 30 (05) 806-824
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Otter JA, Vickery K, Walker JT. et al. Surface-attached cells, biofilms and biocide susceptibility: implications for hospital cleaning and disinfection. J Hosp Infect 2015; 89 (01) 16-27
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Machado I, Graça J, Lopes H, Lopes S, Pereira MO. Antimicrobial pressure of ciprofloxacin and gentamicin on biofilm development by an endoscope-isolated Pseudomonas aeruginosa . ISRN Biotechnol 2012; 2013: 178646
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Hall-Stoodley L, Costerton JW, Stoodley P. Bacterial biofilms: from the natural environment to infectious diseases. Nat Rev Microbiol 2004; 2 (02) 95-108
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Carpentier B, Cerf O. Biofilms and their consequences, with particular reference to hygiene in the food industry. J Appl Bacteriol 1993; 75 (06) 499-511
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Johnson KA. Osteomyelitis in dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1994; 204 (12) 1882-1887
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Siqueira EG, Rahal SC, Ribeiro MG, Paes AC, Listoni FP, Vassalo FG. Exogenous bacterial osteomyelitis in 52 dogs: a retrospective study of etiology and in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility profile (2000-2013). Vet Q 2014; 34 (04) 201-204
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Savicky R, Beale B, Murtaugh R, Swiderski-Hazlett J, Unis M. Outcome following removal of TPLO implants with surgical site infection. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2013; 26 (04) 260-265
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Nicoll C, Singh A, Weese JS. Economic impact of tibial plateau leveling osteotomy surgical site infection in dogs. Vet Surg 2014; 43 (08) 899-902
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Nazarali A, Singh A, Moens NMM. et al. Association between methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius carriage and the development of surgical site infections following tibial plateau leveling osteotomy in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2015; 247 (08) 909-916
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Heller S, Rezapoor M, Parvizi J, Jefferson T. Minimising the risk of infection: a peri-operative checklist. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B (1, Suppl A): 18-22
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Edmiston Jr CE, Leaper DJ. Intra-operative surgical irrigation of the surgical incision: what does the future hold saline, antibiotic agents, or antiseptic agents?. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2016; 17 (06) 656-664
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Kavolus JJ, Schwarzkopf R, Rajaee SS, Chen AF. Irrigation fluids are used for the prevention and treatment of orthopedic infections. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2020; 102 (01) 76-84
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Siddiqi A, Abdo ZE, Springer BD, Chen AF. Pursuit of the ideal antiseptic irrigation solution in the management of periprosthetic joint infections. J Bone Jt Infect 2021; 6 (06) 189-198
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Siddiqi A, Abdo ZE, Rossman SR. et al. What is the optimal irrigation solution in management of periprosthetic hip and knee joint infections?. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 (10) 3570-3583
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Israel SK, Jaramillo E, Liska WD. Preclosure povidone-iodine lavage in total hip replacement surgery: infection outcomes and cost-benefit analysis. Vet Surg 2023; 52 (01) 33-41
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Brown NM, Cipriano CA, Moric M, Sporer SM, Della Valle CJ. Dilute betadine lavage before closure for the prevention of acute postoperative deep periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (01) 27-30
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Calkins TE, Culvern C, Nam D. et al. Dilute betadine lavage reduces the risk of acute postoperative peri-prosthetic joint infection in aseptic revision total knee and hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (02) 538-543.e1
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 van Meurs SJ, Gawlitta D, Heemstra KA, Poolman RW, Vogely HC, Kruyt MC. Selection of an optimal antiseptic solution for intraoperative irrigation: an in vitro study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (04) 285-291
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Goswami K, Austin MS. Intraoperative povidone-iodine irrigation for infection prevention. Arthroplast Today 2019b; 5 (03) 306-308
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 45 Gilotra M, Nguyen T, Jaffe D, Sterling R. Dilute betadine lavage reduces implant-related bacterial burden in a rabbit knee prosthetic infection model. Am J Orthop 2015; 44 (02) E38-E41
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Cichos KH, Andrews RM, Wolschendorf F, Narmore W, Mabry SE, Ghanem ES. Efficacy of intraoperative antiseptic techniques in the prevention of periprosthetic joint infection: superiority of betadine. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (7S): S312-S318
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 George J, Klika AK, Higuera CA. Use of chlorhexidine preparations in total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Infect 2017; 2 (01) 15-22
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Penn-Barwell JG, Murray CK, Wenke JC. Comparison of the antimicrobial effect of chlorhexidine and saline for irrigating a contaminated open fracture model. J Orthop Trauma 2012; 26 (12) 728-732
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Andriollo L, Sangaletti R, Velluto C, Perticarini L, Benazzo F, Rossi SMP. Impact of a novel antiseptic lavage solution on acute periprosthetic joint infection in hip and knee arthroplasty. J Clin Med 2024; 13 (11) 3092
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Premkumar A, Nishtala SN, Nguyen JT, Bostrom MPG, Carli AV. Comparing the efficacy irrigation solutions on Staphylococcal biofilm formed on arthroplasty surface. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36: 26-32
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Berríos-Torres SI, Umscheid CA, Bratzler DW. et al; Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Centers for disease control and prevention guideline for surgical site infection. JAMA Surg 2017; 152 (08) 784-791
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Ernest EP, Machi AS, Karolcik BA, LaSala PR, Dietz MJ. Topical adjuvants incompletely remove adherent Staphylococcus aureus from implant materials. J Orthop Res 2018; 36 (06) 1599-1604
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Knecht CS, Moley JP, McGrath MS, Granger JF, Stoodley P, Dusane DH. Antibiotic loaded calcium sulfate bead and pulse lavage eradicates biofilms on metal implant materials in vitro. J Orthop Res 2018; 36 (09) 2349-2354
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 54 Thompson AM, Bergh MS, Wang C, Wells K. Tibial plateau levelling osteotomy implant removal: a retrospective analysis of 129 cases. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2011; 24 (06) 450-456
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Ingram LO. Ethanol tolerance in bacteria. Crit Rev Biotechnol 1990; 9 (04) 305-319
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 56 Elzain AM, Elsanousi SM, Elfatih M, Ibrahim A. Effectiveness of ethanol and methanol alcohols on different isolates of Staphylococcus species. J Bacteriol Mycol Open Access. 2019; 7: 71-73
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 57 Eugster S, Schawalder P, Gaschen F, Boerlin P. A prospective study of postoperative surgical site infections in dogs and cats. Vet Surg 2004; 33 (05) 542-550
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 58 Pratesi A, Moores AP, Downes C, Grierson J, Maddox TW. Efficacy of postoperative antimicrobial use for clean orthopedic implant surgery in dogs: a prospective randomized study in 100 consecutive cases. Vet Surg 2015; 44 (05) 653-660
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 59 Márquez-Gómez M, Díaz-Navarro M, Visedo A. et al. An in vitro study to assess the best strategy for the chemical debridement of periprosthetic joint infection. Antibiotics (Basel) 2023; 12 (10) 1507
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar