17 Clinical Trials for Various Conditions
The purpose of this research is to evaluate two different standard of care surgeries in treating periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Researchers are looking at differences in outcomes following single versus planned double debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) for acutely infected total hip arthroplasty (THA), and total knee arthroplasties (TKAs).
Testing and comparison of a novel point-of-care electrochemical assay to detect and help diagnose periprosthetic joint infection on the hip and knee to the standard of care test
The investigators primary objective is to identify genetic factors that may increase the risk of patients developing a periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) following total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The investigators hope that by identifying genetic predispositions we will be able to provide patient specific care pathways to prevent or minimize the risk for PJI.
The purpose of this study is to learn about the safety and effects of PLG0206 for treating periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) in conjunction with the DAIR (debridement, antibiotics and implant retention) surgical procedure for patients with periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) .
This is a prospective multicenter study. All patients presenting for revision hip or knee arthroplasty for all indications under the respective surgeon's care may be eligible. Per standard of care preoperatively, all patients must have blood drawn for erythrocyte sedimentation rate(ESR), C-reactive protein(CRP) and D-dimer. Aspiration of the joint in question may be performed at the discretion of the treating surgeon and results documented. Intraoperative samples will also be collected and sent for NGS analysis
* To demonstrate the tests' performance when compared to the detection of PJI using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria-based definition of PJI for diagnosing PJI.1 This criteria-based definition of PJI places emphasis on culture techniques that identify pathogens, but also provides for minor criteria that can be used to diagnose PJI; * To calculate the tests' clinical sensitivity, clinical specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).
The primary aim of the study is to compare two techniques for treatment of total knee infection: resection total knee arthroplasty with an articulating (motion in the joint) spacer and resection total knee arthroplasty with a static (no motion in the joint) spacer.
Multiple studies have demonstrated oral suppressive antibiotic therapy (SAT), after intravenous antibiotics, maximizes reoperation-free survival of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) for acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, little is known regarding sequelae of SAT after DAIR for PJI. Prior studies have small or heterogeneous patient cohorts, variable antibiotic regimens, arrive at disparate conclusions, and do not establish antibiotic resistance risk. The investigators propose a prospective randomized controlled multicenter study to expand on findings in a retrospective, multi-center pilot study. Study aims are to evaluate SAT after DAIR of acutely infected primary TJA regarding: 1) adverse drug reactions/intolerance; 2) reoperation for infection; and 3) antibiotic resistance.
This is a pivotal, prospective, multi-center, randomized, concurrent control, patient and assessor-blinded study with two arms: a treatment arm (where subjects will be treated with the EP Granules with Tobramycin investigational device in the 1st stage of a staged revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJIs), and a control arm (where subjects are treated with the standard-of-care revision for infected PJIs).
The usage of splash basins in the setting of total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty presents a risk of contamination and subsequent periprosthetic joint infection. Previous studies have investigated the efficacy of multiple antimicrobial irrigants for preventing periprosthetic joint infection, but the results are varied. Despite several noteworthy studies on the appropriate usage of different antiseptic solutions in surgical splash basins, the current literature has several limitations. First, there are no head-to-head clinical trials comparing betadine and chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) usage with relation to periprosthetic joint infection and splash basin contamination rates. Second, the in vitro studies directly cultured splash basin antiseptic solutions rather than culturing surgical instruments. The objective of this study is to compare the microbial contamination rate of total joint arthroplasty instruments that have been placed in surgical splash basins filled with either sterile water, 3.5% betadine, or 0.05% CHG. The overall purpose of the study is to investigate the efficacy of 0.05% CHG and determine if it is an appropriate solution to use in surgical splash basins for joint replacement surgeries. A prospective clinical trial will be conducted. Patients treated at the Keck Hospital of USC or USC Verdugo Hills Hospital for primary total hip or total knee arthroplasty will be screened for inclusion in our study. All primary surgeries will be performed according to the preferences of the operating surgeon. No deviations from standard surgical care will be made based on inclusion in this study. However, prior to surgery, patients who elect to participate will be randomized to one of three groups: (1) sterile water, (2) 3.5% betadine, or (3) 0.05% CHG.
This study aims to compare the clinical impact of Constrained Condylar versus Posterior Stabilized Knee (PS) bearings on patient satisfaction and surgical outcomes including mid-term survivorship among patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty.
The goal of this interventional study is to determine the amount of skin C. acnes reduction with increased pressure during the chlorhexidine gluconate, brand name ChloraPrep, application. The main question it aims to answer is: Does changing the pressure applied during the ChloraPrep application impact the amount of C. acnes bacteria on the skin after one hour? Researchers will compare ChloraPrep applied at a pressure similar to a gentle wipe to ChloraPrep applied at a pressure similar to a massage to see if wash the amount of C. acnes on the skin after one hour is different. Participants will have one shoulder washed with ChloraPrep using pressure meant to impact the dermal layer, similar to a gentle wipe, and the other shoulder washed with ChloraPrep using pressure meant to impact the subdermal layer, similar to a massage. Participants will have swabs taken of their skin before the ChloraPrep application and again one hour after application to look for the amount of C. acnes on the skin.
Periprosthetic infection following shoulder arthroplasty is a devastating complication. Diagnosing and treating periprosthetic shoulder infection poses a significant challenge. At the forefront of this issue is Cutibacterium acnes because the current prophylactic regimens are insufficient to eradicate C acnes from the surgical field. It is believed that C acnes infections occur during surgery when the sebaceous glands in the skin are cut and exposed, leading to C acnes contaminating the surgeon's instruments and gloves and, thus, the surgical wound. The purpose of this study is to examine if making skin incisions using electrocautery will result in decreased C acnes contamination during shoulder arthroplasty. To this end, we propose a randomized clinical trial where patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty are randomized into two groups - Electrocautery incision group (Electro) vs. Scalpel incision group (Scalpel) - and swab cultures are obtained from the skin incision and operating surgeon's gloves and forceps
To determine the effectiveness of a 7-day course of an oral, prophylactic antibiotic on the incidence of periprosthetic joint infection and wound complications following primary total hip and knee arthroplasty in a high-risk patient population.
The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of two different treatment options commonly used to manage periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), an infection around the artificial knee or hip.
This study aims to improve how doctors diagnose infections in patients with broken bones around joint replacements. Currently, there are no clear guidelines to help determine when an infection is present, making treatment decisions difficult. By studying how often infections are found through lab tests and identifying factors that predict infection, the investigators hope to create better ways to diagnose and care for these patients.
In the US, if an infection in an artificial knee joint doesn't heal with antibiotics alone, the standard treatment is a two-stage revision of the artificial knee. In the first stage, the surgeon will remove the artificial knee and clean out the area around the knee. They will then place an antibiotic spacer. An antibiotic spacer is a type of artificial joint that will release antibiotics into the knee space continuously over time. The spacer allows only very basic function of the knee. The patient may need to use crutches or a walker while the antibiotic spacer is in place. After surgery to place the antibiotic spacer, the surgeon may prescribe a course of antibiotics as well. Because the antibiotic spacer is not as durable as a regular artificial joint, after the infection is gone, another surgery is required to take the spacer out and put a new artificial knee joint in. There is another way for artificial joint infections to be treated. This is a one-stage revision. In this treatment, the surgeon will remove the artificial knee and clean out the area around the knee. Then the surgeon will place a new artificial knee in using a special kind of cement that contains antibiotics. The cement will release antibiotics into the knee space continuously over time (the surgeon may prescribe a course of antibiotics as well). The new artificial joint with antibiotic cement will function almost the same as the original artificial knee. This means that while the infection is healing the patient will be able to do most of the regular daily activities. However, the antibiotic cement is not as durable as what is normally used to implant an artificial knee. The artificial knee with the antibiotic cement may need to be replaced with a regular artificial knee. When replacement will need to be done is dependent on patient weight, bone strength and activity level, among other things. When it is time to replace the antibiotic cement artificial knee, the patient will have another surgery where the surgeon will take the antibiotic cement artificial knee and put a new artificial knee joint in. Investigators know that both the one- and two-stage revision work equally well to heal the infection, but investigators don't know which patients prefer or which provides better function after many years. This study will randomly assign patients to receive either a one-stage or two-stage revision and then follow them for 5 years to ask them about pain, function, and satisfaction.