Re-Infection Outcomes following One- and Two-Stage Surgical Revision of Infected Hip Prosthesis:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The two-stage revision strategy has been claimed as being the "gold standard" for treating prosthetic joint infection. The one-stage revision strategy remains an attractive alternative option; however, its effectiveness in comparison to the two-stage strategy remains uncertain.To compare the effectiveness of one- and two-stage revision strategies in treating prosthetic hip infection, using re-infection as an outcome.Systematic review and meta-analysis.MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, manual search of bibliographies to March 2015, and email contact with investigators.Cohort studies (prospective or retrospective) conducted in generally unselected patients with prosthetic hip infection treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and with re-infection outcomes reported within two years of revision. No clinical trials were identified.Data were extracted by two independent investigators and a consensus was reached with involvement of a third. Rates of re-infection from 38 one-stage studies (2,536 participants) and 60 two-stage studies (3,288 participants) were aggregated using random-effect models after arcsine transformation, and were grouped by study and population level characteristics.In one-stage studies, the rate (95% confidence intervals) of re-infection was 8.2% (6.0-10.8). The corresponding re-infection rate after two-stage revision was 7.9% (6.2-9.7). Re-infection rates remained generally similar when grouped by several study and population level characteristics. There was no strong evidence of publication bias among contributing studies.Evidence from aggregate published data suggest similar re-infection rates after one- or two-stage revision among unselected patients. More detailed analyses under a broader range of circumstances and exploration of other sources of heterogeneity will require collaborative pooling of individual participant data.PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015016559

Ellagic Acid Derivatives from Rubus ulmifolius Inhibit Staphylococcus aureus Biofilm Formation and Improve Response to Antibiotics

Biofilms contribute to the pathogenesis of many forms of Staphylococcus aureus infection. Treatment of these infections is complicated by intrinsic resistance to conventional antibiotics, thus creating an urgent need for strategies that can be used for the prevention and treatment of biofilm-associated infections.This study demonstrates that a botanical natural product composition (220D-F2) rich in ellagic acid and its derivatives can limit S. aureus biofilm formation to a degree that can be correlated with increased antibiotic susceptibility. The source of this composition is Rubus ulmifolius Schott. (Rosaceae), a plant used in complementary and alternative medicine in southern Italy for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections. All S. aureus clonal lineages tested exhibited a reduced capacity to form a biofilm at 220D-F2 concentrations ranging from 50-200 µg/mL, which were well below the concentrations required to limit bacterial growth (530-1040 µg/mL). This limitation was therapeutically relevant in that inclusion of 220D-F2 resulted in enhanced susceptibility to the functionally-distinct antibiotics daptomycin, clindamycin and oxacillin. Testing with kidney and liver cell lines also demonstrated a lack of host cell cytotoxicity at concentrations of 220D-F2 required to achieve these effects.These results demonstrate that extract 220D-F2 from the root of Rubus ulmifolius can be used to inhibit S. aureus biofilm formation to a degree that can be correlated with increased antibiotic susceptibility without toxic effects on normal mammalian cells. Hence, 220D-F2 is a strong candidate for development as a botanical drug for use in the prevention and treatment of S. aureus biofilm-associated infections