Periprosthetic fungal infections : be alert clinical cases and review of the literature

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Botha, Liesl
dc.contributor.author Le Roux, Theo L.B.
dc.contributor.author McLoughlin, Heather
dc.date.accessioned 2017-05-31T07:15:01Z
dc.date.available 2017-05-31T07:15:01Z
dc.date.issued 2016
dc.description.abstract The increasing rate of arthroplasty, revisions and resistance to antibiotics has increased the risk for fungal infections. Different treatment modalities exist: suppressive therapy, debridement with retained prosthesis, Girdlestone procedures and 2- or even 3-stage revision arthroplasty. Fungal infections after joint replacements are rare but devastating. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY : The aim was to see if there was any trend that could help with the diagnosis and management of patients with fungal infections. The literature was reviewed in order to assist with diagnosis and treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS : A retrospective study was performed and all the cases seen and treated by a tumour and sepsis orthopaedic specialist from 1999 to 2015 were evaluated. Inclusion criteria: Patients had to be diagnosed with a fungal infection in any specimen which was sent for histology or culture. Exclusions: none. RESULTS : Four patients were identified. All of them were males. Mean age 58 (35–71) years. The primary surgical indications were: vertebral osteomyelitis; post primary knee replacement; pig bite with lower limb sepsis and osteoarthritis knee, and a septic total hip replacement. Three cases cultured Candida parapsilosis and one Candida albicans of which three were tissue cultures and one a blood culture. Currently 75% have failed treatment – one passed away, one developed systemic sepsis, and one had an above-knee amputation and is still struggling with subsequent bacterial infections in the amputation stump. CONCLUSION : As long as there are higher incidences of fungal infections with devastating complications more evidence is needed. Numerous small case studies have been published, with the purpose of looking for the correct treatment: monotherapy, combination therapy, newer antifungals, higher dosages, implant retention or removal. It appears that the correct answer is unclear as yet. It is important to always have a high index of suspicion and good pre-operative planning together with a team approach: infectious diseases specialist, microbiologist and histologist. This approach will optimise the probability of making a diagnosis and to appropriately manage the fungus cultured. en_ZA
dc.description.department Orthopaedic Surgery en_ZA
dc.description.librarian am2017 en_ZA
dc.description.uri http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=1681-150X&lng=pt&nrm=iso en_ZA
dc.identifier.citation Botha, L, Le Roux, TLB & McLoughlin, H 2016, 'Periprosthetic fungal infections : be alert clinical cases and review of the literature', SA Orthopaedic Journal, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 14-21. en_ZA
dc.identifier.issn 1681-150X
dc.identifier.other 10.17159/2309-8309/2016/v15n2a1
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2263/60729
dc.language.iso en en_ZA
dc.publisher South African Orthopaedic Association en_ZA
dc.rights South African Orthopaedic Association en_ZA
dc.subject Periprosthetic infection en_ZA
dc.subject Fungal infection en_ZA
dc.subject Antifungals en_ZA
dc.subject Candidiasi en_ZA
dc.subject Sepsis en_ZA
dc.title Periprosthetic fungal infections : be alert clinical cases and review of the literature en_ZA
dc.type Article en_ZA


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record