Comparison of a low-pressure and a high-pressure pulsatile lavage during d  bridement for XXXX .

@entity1 @entity281 @entity794 @entity526
INTRODUCTION: The aim of our study was to compare the effectiveness of high-pressure pulsatile lavage and low-pressure lavage in @entity1 with an @entity281 treated with open d  bridement followed by antibiotic treatment. @entity1 AND METHODS: @entity1 with an @entity281 requiring open d  bridement from January 2008 to August 2009 were randomized prospectively to a low-pressure or a high-pressure pulsatile lavage arm. Relevant information about demographics, co-morbidity, type of implant, microbiology data, surgical treatment, and outcome were recorded. Comparison of proportions was made using   (2) test or Fisher exact test when necessary. The Kaplan-Meier survival method was used to estimate the cumulative probability of treatment failure from open d  bridement to the last visit. RESULTS: Seventy-nine @entity1 were included. There were no differences between the main characteristics between both groups (p > 0.05). Mean (SD) age of the whole cohort was 70.2 (11.9) years. There were 46 infections on knee prosthesis, 17 on hip prosthesis, 7 on hip hemiarthroplasties and 9 on osteosynthesis devices. There were 69 acute @entity281 , 8 acute @entity281 . The most common microorganisms isolated were coagulase-negative Staphylococci in 34 cases, @entity794 in 26 and @entity526 in 19 cases. There were 30 polymicrobial infections. A total of 42 and 37 @entity1 were randomized to a high-pressure pulsatile or a low-pressure lavage, respectively. There was no difference in the success rate between both arms (80.9 vs. 86.5%, p = 0.56). CONCLUSION: The use of a high-pressure pulsatile lavage during open d  bridement of @entity281 had a similar success rate as a low-pressure lavage.
