Skip to main content
Download PDF

Increased rate of enteric bacteria as cause of periprosthetic joint infections in patients with liver cirrhosis

BMC Infectious Diseases volume 22, Article number: 389 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) are a major complication in joint-arthroplasty. Rifampicin is often used as an additional agent to treat PJI, because it penetrates bacterial biofilms. However, rifaximin, belonging to the same antibiotic class as rifampicin, is frequently used to prevent episodes of hepatic encephalopathy in patients with cirrhosis and may induce resistance to rifampicin. The aim of this study was to examine the microbial pattern of periprosthetic joint infections in cirrhotic patients and to test the hypothesis that intake of rifaximin increases the rate of resistance to rifampicin in periprosthetic joint infections.

Methods

A cohort of cirrhotic patients and PJI (n = 25) was analysed on the characteristics of bacterial isolates from sonication and tissue analysis. In a second step a subgroup analysis on the development of rifampicin resistant bacterial specimens, depending on the intake of rifaximin (8 rifaximin intake patients vs. 13 non rifaximin intake patients) was performed.

Results

Intestinal bacteria were found in 50% of the specimens, which was significantly more frequent than in a control cohort. By comparison of the single bacterial isolates, rifampicin resistance was detected in 69.2% (9/13) of the rifaximin-intake samples. In contrast, the non-rifaximin-intake isolates only were resistant to rifampicin in 22.2% (4/18) of the cases (p = 0.01). The odds ratio for developing a rifampicin-resistance through rifaximin intake was calculated as OR = 13.5.

Conclusion

Periprosthetic joint infections have a high incidence of being caused by enteric bacteria in cirrhotic patients. Due to this change in microbial pattern and the innate resistance to rifampicin of most of gram-negative bacteria, the therapy with rifampicin should be carefully considered. The association between the use of rifaximin and developed resistance to rifampicin has a major impact on the treatment of PJI.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The risk for periprosthetic infections, estimated at around 1–2% for total knee arthroplasties (TKA) and 1% for total hip arthroplasties (THA) in the general population [1, 2] increases to 3.7% for THA and around 2.7% for TKA in cirrhotic patients [3]. Due to a compromised antibacterial immune response in cirrhotic patients [4, 5], periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) become even more a disastrous and feared complication [6]. Gut microbiome alterations (dysbiosis) in cirrhotic patients are frequently reported [7,8,9,10,11] and lead to higher abundance and relative overgrowth of Staphylococcaeae, Enterobacteriaceae and Enterococcaceae [7, 11]. A Europe-wide study showed that, due to bacterial translocation from the intestine, bacterial infections in cirrhotic patients are mainly caused by gram-negative bacteria such as Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumonia [12].

In non-cirrhotic patients, common pathogens in periprosthetic infections are biofilm-forming species such as Staphylococcus species [13, 14]. The foreign body of the prosthesis provides a surface where bacterial exopolysaccharides can adhere [15, 16], increasing the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) up to 100–1000 times [15], which leads to low susceptibility to antibiotic treatment [16]. Therapy in those cases requires a prolonged antibiotic treatment, preferably with a drug combination that is effective against biofilm bacteria, including rifampicin (around 70% [17]) or doxycycline [18].

With its potent activity against a variety of pathogens and potential to penetrate biofilms, rifampicin, which inhibits the bacterial RNA synthesis by binding and blocking the beta subunit of the DNA-dependent-RNA-polymerase [19], is a widely used antibiotic drug in joint infections [20]. Rifampicin-resistant pathogens are also known to be cross-resistant to other approved rifamycins (rifambutin, rifaximin and rifapentine) [21]. Rifaximin, which is characterized by poor intestinal absorption, prevents episodes of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) in patients with cirrhosis [22,23,24,25,26,27], so that consensus guidelines recommend long-term rifaximin use along with non-absorbable disaccharides in patients with recurrent episodes of HE [28].

Resistance to rifamycin in Staphylococcus aureus is mediated primarily by mutations in the rpoB gene [29], but seems to be reversible after months without rifampicin [21]. In patients with cirrhosis, long-term intake of rifaximin, despite the low plasma concentration, was associated with appearance of rifampicin-resistance in skin colonizing Staphylococcus species [27, 30, 31]. Three months after the end of treatment, the mutant population is once again overcome by the wildtype strain [30, 32].

The aim of this study was to examine the microbial pattern of periprosthetic joint infections in cirrhotic patients and to test the hypothesis that intake of rifaximin increases the rate of resistance to rifampicin in periprosthetic joint infections.

Methods

For this retrospective cohort study a database search was performed for patients with the combination of liver cirrhosis and periprosthetic joint infections, who were admitted between January 2009 and September 2020 at the University Hospital of Bonn. Patients were excluded if surgical or antibiotic treatment was started prior to admission, or if no bacteria was isolated from intraoperative specimens. Furthermore, no fungi or mycobacteriacae were considered.

Initially, the database search retrieved 45 patients, of whom 20 patients had to be excluded, because diagnosis of PJI of hip or knee was not confirmed or essential data were missing (14 patients), PJI was caused by Candida species in four patients, in one patients no microorganism could be detected and one patient was affected by Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Finally, 25 patients with PJI with 60 bacterial strains were included in the analysis (Tables 1 and 2). The leading cause for cirrhosis in the study cohort was alcohol, followed by viral hepatitis, while none of the patients suffered from an autoimmune or biliary cause. Cirrhosis classification scores were calculated upon operation date.

Table 1 Patients characteristics
Full size table
Table 2 Characteristics of bacterial isolates
Full size table

In the first step of the analysis the cohort was examined for the overall microbial pattern of the periprosthetic joint infections. To compare the pattern of bacteria in our patients with cirrhosis to a cohort of general patients with PJI, we used data from a previous study on microbiological diagnostic methods of PJI from our university [33]. In the second step of the analysis, all bacterial isolates with unknown susceptibility or with innate resistance to rifampicin were excluded and patients then assigned either to the rifaximin-intake or the no-rifaximin group. Hence 8 patients were assigned to the rifaximin-intake and 13 to the no-rifaximin intake group.

Bacteria were identified through bacteriological cultures of tissue and sonication [34]. Additional statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS version 22 (SPSS Inc, IBM, Chicago, IL) for patient age, sex, duration of rifaximin-intake, the MELD-Score (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease) and the Child–Pugh-Score. Normality was assessed by using histograms and equality of variances by using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Demographic characteristics and read-outs of different findings as well as quantitative parameters were compared by using the Mann–Whitney-U test. For comparison of qualitative parameters, Fisher exact test was used. To classify the risk to develop a resistance to rifampicin when taking rifaximin Odds ratio was computed. Continuous data are reported as mean (standard deviation, SD) or median (minimum–maximum, MIN/MAX). The reported p values are 2-sided, with a significance level of 0.05. A post-hoc power analysis was performed with G-Power (University of Dusseldorf, Germany). The study was approved by the local ethic committee (330/19) and conducted according to the principles of the declaration of Helsinki.

Results

Patients’ demography revealed a balanced distribution of age and sex. The joint infections affected total hip arthroplasties (18/25; 72%), knee arthroplasties (7/25; 28%). The underlying diseases of cirrhosis were in 56% alcohol abuse (14/25) and viral hepatitis (5/25; 20%).

In more than half of the samples gram-positive bacteria were detected (44/60; 73.3%), with Staphylococci and Streptococci being the biggest fraction (27/60; 45%) (Table 2). In 26.7% (16/60) of the specimen gram-negative bacteria such as Escherichia coli, Enterobacter cloacae, Klebsiella oxytoca, Proteus species, Serratia marcescens and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were found. 37 of all strains found are commonly known for the capability of producing biofilms (61.7%). Most of the 25 (20/25, 80%) Staphylococcal strains (S. epidermidis, S. haemolyticus, S. intermedius and S. lugdunensis) were coagulase-negative and 20% were S. aureus (5/25). Table 3 displays the susceptibility to the most important substance groups of antibiotics. S. epidermidis was mostly resistant to ampicillin/sulbactam (11/12; 91.7%). Interestingly, when we compared the occurrence of intestinal bacteria as cause of PJI to a control cohort, we found that enteric bacteria were significantly more frequent in PJI from cirrhosis patients while staphylococci were less frequent (Table 4).

Table 3 Resistogram of bacterial isolates
Full size table
Table 4 Bacterial pathogens in the cirrhosis and a control cohort
Full size table

By comparison of the single bacterial isolates, rifampicin resistance could be detected in 69.2% (9/13) of the microbiological cultures from patients of the rifaximin-intake group. By contrast, the non-rifaximin-intake isolates only were resistant to rifampicin in 22.2% (4/18) of the cases (p = 0.01, see Fig. 1). The odds ratio for developing rifampicin-resistance by taking rifaximin was calculated as 13.5. Post-hoc power analysis revealed a medium to high power (0.73) and a high effect (d = 0.86).

Fig. 1
figure 1

In periprosthetic joint infection, both groups (RI; NRI) had sensitive and resistant microbes, but differ in regard to their rifaximin intake; *significant difference (p = 0.01)

Full size image

No association between susceptibility to rifampicin and age (p = 0.6), MELD-Score (p = 0.92) or sex (p = 0.35) could be revealed. No significant correlation was found between susceptibility to rifampicin and the individual duration of rifaximin intake (p = 0.2). Within 6 months post-operatively 11 of 25 (44%) patients in this cohort died. Survival after six months was not dependent on the susceptibility to rifampicin (p = 0.66).

Discussion

Out data indicate that PJIs in cirrhotic patients are in 26.7% (16/60) of the cases associated with gram-negative bacteria, while non-cirrhotic patients mostly suffer from PJIs caused by CoNS (30–43%), Staphylococcus aureus (12–23%) or Streptococci (9–10%) [35,36,37,38,39]. Gram-negative bacteria (3–6%) or Enterococci (3–7%) are found less often in non-cirrhotic patients, which highlights the importance of our findings [17, 39, 44]. When comparing the occurrence of intestinal bacteria in our cohort to a control cohort from our university, we found a significantly higher rate of intestinal pathogens in PJI from cirrhosis patients. Our data indicate for the first time that periprosthetic joint infections in patients with cirrhosis are often caused by intestinal pathogens, strengthening the concept that bacterial translocation from the intestine and alterations in the microbiome play a major role for infections in those patients [40]. The difference in the microbial pattern in this cohort coincides with the findings of bacterial dysbiosis and other bacterial infections in cirrhotic patients [12]. Gut microbiome transition due to cirrhosis and alcohol seems to induce differences in bacterial colonisation all over the human body system. Concordantly to that, most of the examined patients suffered from alcoholic cirrhosis (56%), where microbiome transition is described most elaborately [7, 10, 41]. The underlying reasons for gut microbiome transition are yet fully understood. Therapeutic considerations should include the higher rate of intestinal bacteria with a larger amount of gram-negative and anaerobic bacteria and hence a shift in susceptibility to antibiotic agents.

The detected difference between the RI- and the NRI-group suggests that rifaximin may induce rifampicin resistance in bacteria causing PJIs. In this cohort the resistance did not seem to be dependent on the duration of rifaximin intake, which might be due to the fact that all patients had been taking rifaximin for at least 4 weeks prior to development of PJI and because resistance to rifaximin can be detected early [42]. It has earlier been reported that intake of rifaximin may induce cross-resistance to rifampicin [30, 31] in healthy individuals. However, this is the first study to analyse the impact of rifaximin intake on the microorganisms causing periprosthetic joint infections in cirrhotic patients.

In an in-vitro study Rothstein et al. described that cross-resistances among rifamycin derivates have a great impact on the therapeutical benefit of these antibiotics. The reported resistance regularly occurred during intake, but rapidly disappeared after discontinuation of the drug [21]. In almost 50% of 198 skin bacterial isolates, especially Staphylococcus species, from 25 patients, Chang et al. found resistance to rifampicin during the intake of rifaximin [30]. In accordance to the results from Rothstein et al. the prevalence of resistance decreased after stopping rifaximin therapy [30]. In contrast to that, Valentin et al. showed remaining rifampicin-resistant strains nine weeks after discontinuation of rifaximin [31]. However, rifaximin therapy is usually given for long periods of time in patients with cirrhosis. Though, the administration of rifampicin in cirrhotic patients is never uncomplicated due to liver-related side effects.

The cohort of this study suffered from a relatively high mortality rate of 40% (10/25). In the literature, cirrhotic patients are nearly ten times more likely to die after joint infections as patients without liver disease [3]. In this cohort, we did not detect any hints for a significantly higher mortality rate in the subgroup of patients with rifampicin resistance. Our cohort, however, suffered in 31.7% from obligate and facultative anaerobic bacterial infections (Clostridium difficile, Cutibacterium acnes, Enterobacter cloacae, Escherichia coli, Serratia marcescens, Klebsiella oxytoca, Proteus species, Pseudomonas aeruginosa; 19/60), although the literature describes a portion of only 3–6% in PJI [43].

Even if the cohort of this study is small, our findings indicate that the patients’ medical history with regard to former or current rifaximin intake should be carefully noted. As rifampicin is widely used due to its singular bactericidal activity within biofilm, alternative antibiotics for patients with rifampicin resistance are scarce. As most cirrhotic patients on rifaximin suffer from multimorbidity, such as peripheral arterial disease, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, they have an elevated prevalence of joint implants, which may become infected due to the compromised immune system. Some gram-negative bacterial strains found in this study are intrinsically resistant to rifampicin. Because rifampicin is a widely used antibiotic in periprosthetic joint infection, this shift has to be seriously considered in the empirical antibiotic treatment of cirrhotic patients.

Our study is limited by the small sample size. However, even in a big tertiary centre, joint replacement in the small, but important subgroup of patients with liver cirrhosis is not frequent, and PJI is even more rare. Nevertheless, due to its severe consequences for the individual patient, these infections require particular attention. The results of our study indicate that it would be of high interest to investigate the microbial pattern of PJI and the influence of rifaximin in patients with cirrhosis on a bigger scale. As in all microbiological studies, our results from a European centre may not be applicable to other areas of the world.

Conclusion

Periprosthetic joint infections might be caused more often by enteric bacteria in patients with liver cirrhosis than expected from patients without cirrhosis. Due to this change in microbial pattern and the innate resistance to rifampicin of most of gram-negative bacteria, the therapy with rifampicin should be carefully considered. Additionally, the association between the use of rifaximin and developed resistance to rifampicin has a major impact on the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections in this cohort. Before empiric antibiotic therapy is started, careful attention should be paid to the medical history in patients with liver cirrhosis.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

MIC:

Minimum inhibitory concentration

MELD:

Model of End Stage Liver Disease-Score

NAFLD:

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

RI-group:

Rifaximin intake group

NRI-group:

No Rifaximin intake group

PJI:

Periprosthetic joint infections

TKA:

Total knee arthroplasty

THA:

Total hip arthroplasty

HE:

Hepatic encephalopathy

CoNS:

Coagulase negative Staphyloccoci

References

  1. Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Lau E, Bozic KJ, Berry D, Parvizi J. Prosthetic joint infection risk after TKA in the Medicare population. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:52–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dale H, Hallan G, Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB. Increasing risk of revision due to deep infection after hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2009;80:639–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Jiang SL, Schairer WW, Bozic KJ. Increased rates of periprosthetic joint infection in patients with cirrhosis undergoing total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:2483–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Liang J, Meng W-D, Yang J-M, Li S-L, Zhong M-N, Hou X-X, et al. The association between liver cirrhosis and fracture risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Endocrinol. 2018;89:408–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bernsmeier C, van der Merwe S, Périanin A. Innate immune cells in cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2020;73:186–201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Deleuran T, Vilstrup H, Overgaard S, Jepsen P. Cirrhosis patients have increased risk of complications after hip or knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2015;86:108–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Bajaj JS, Hylemon PB, Ridlon JM, Heuman DM, Daita K, White MB, et al. Colonic mucosal microbiome differs from stool microbiome in cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy and is linked to cognition and inflammation. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2012;303:G675–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Bajaj JS, Heuman DM, Hylemon PB, Sanyal AJ, White MB, Monteith P, et al. Altered profile of human gut microbiome is associated with cirrhosis and its complications. J Hepatol. 2014;60:940–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Acharya C, Bajaj JS. Altered microbiome in patients with cirrhosis and complications. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17:307–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tilg H, Cani PD, Mayer EA. Gut microbiome and liver diseases. Gut. 2016;65:2035–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Skinner C, Thompson AJ, Thursz MR, Marchesi JR, Vergis N. Intestinal permeability and bacterial translocation in patients with liver disease, focusing on alcoholic aetiology: methods of assessment and therapeutic intervention. Ther Adv Gastroenterol. 2020;13:1756284820942616.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fernández J, Prado V, Trebicka J, Amoros A, Gustot T, Wiest R, et al. Multidrug-resistant bacterial infections in patients with decompensated cirrhosis and with acute-on-chronic liver failure in Europe. J Hepatol. 2019;70:398–411.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Parvizi J, Azzam K, Ghanem E, Austin MS, Rothman RH. Periprosthetic infection due to resistant staphylococci: serious problems on the horizon. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:1732–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Zimmerli W, Moser C. Pathogenesis and treatment concepts of orthopaedic biofilm infections. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2012;65:158–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jacqueline C, Caillon J. Impact of bacterial biofilm on the treatment of prosthetic joint infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69(Suppl 1):i37-40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Urish KL, DeMuth PW, Kwan BW, Craft DW, Ma D, Haider H, et al. Antibiotic-tolerant Staphylococcus aureus biofilm persists on arthroplasty materials. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474:1649–56.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Bernard L, Arvieux C, Brunschweiler B, Touchais S, Ansart S, Bru J-P, et al. Antibiotic therapy for 6 or 12 weeks for prosthetic joint infection. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1991–2001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mandell JB, Orr S, Koch J, Nourie B, Ma D, Bonar DD, et al. Large variations in clinical antibiotic activity against Staphylococcus aureus biofilms of periprosthetic joint infection isolates. J Orthop Res. 2019;37:1604–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Alifano P, Palumbo C, Pasanisi D, Talà A. Rifampicin-resistance, rpoB polymorphism and RNA polymerase genetic engineering. J Biotechnol. 2015;202:60–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Trampuz A, Widmer AF. Infections associated with orthopedic implants. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2006;19:349–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rothstein DM. Rifamycins, alone and in combination. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2016;6: a027011.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Amodio P. Hepatic encephalopathy: diagnosis and management. Liver Int. 2018;38:966–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hudson M, Schuchmann M. Long-term management of hepatic encephalopathy with lactulose and/or rifaximin: a review of the evidence. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;31:434–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kaji K, Takaya H, Saikawa S, Furukawa M, Sato S, Kawaratani H, et al. Rifaximin ameliorates hepatic encephalopathy and endotoxemia without affecting the gut microbiome diversity. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23:8355–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Kimer N, Krag A, Møller S, Bendtsen F, Gluud LL. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the effects of rifaximin in hepatic encephalopathy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014;40:123–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bass NM, Mullen KD, Sanyal A, Poordad F, Neff G, Leevy CB, et al. Rifaximin treatment in hepatic encephalopathy. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1071–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mullen KD, Sanyal AJ, Bass NM, Poordad FF, Sheikh MY, Frederick RT, et al. Rifaximin is safe and well tolerated for long-term maintenance of remission from overt hepatic encephalopathy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12:1390–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, European Association for the Study of the Liver. Hepatic encephalopathy in chronic liver disease. practice guideline by the European Association for the Study of the Liver and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. J Hepatol. 2014;2014:642–59.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wichelhaus TA, Schäfer V, Brade V, Böddinghaus B. Molecular characterization of rpoB mutations conferring cross-resistance to rifamycins on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43:2813–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Chang JY, Kim S-E, Kim TH, Woo S-Y, Ryu MS, Joo Y-H, et al. Emergence of rifampin-resistant staphylococci after rifaximin administration in cirrhotic patients. PLoS ONE. 2017;12: e0186120.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Valentin T, Leitner E, Rohn A, Zollner-Schwetz I, Hoenigl M, Salzer HJF, et al. Rifaximin intake leads to emergence of rifampin-resistant staphylococci. J Infect. 2011;62:34–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Padilla E, Oms L, Espejo E, Gómez L, Pagespetit L, Boada N, et al. Rifampin resistance in Staphylococci after rifaximin intake for surgical prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62:467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hischebeth GTR, Randau TM, Molitor E, Wimmer MD, Hoerauf A, Bekeredjian-Ding I, et al. Comparison of bacterial growth in sonication fluid cultures with periprosthetic membranes and with cultures of biopsies for diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016;84:112–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Trampuz A, Piper KE, Jacobson MJ, Hanssen AD, Unni KK, Osmon DR, et al. Sonication of removed hip and knee prostheses for diagnosis of infection. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:654–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Li Z-L, Hou Y-F, Zhang B-Q, Chen Y-F, Wang Q, Wang K, et al. Identifying common pathogens in periprosthetic joint infection and testing drug-resistance rate for different antibiotics: a prospective, single center study in Beijing. Orthop Surg. 2018;10:235–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Rothenberg AC, Wilson AE, Hayes JP, O’Malley MJ, Klatt BA. Sonication of arthroplasty implants improves accuracy of periprosthetic joint infection cultures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475:1827–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Rosteius T, Jansen O, Fehmer T, Baecker H, Citak M, Schildhauer TA, et al. Evaluating the microbial pattern of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip and knee. J Med Microbiol. 2018;67:1608–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Drago L, De Vecchi E, Bortolin M, Zagra L, Romanò CL, Cappelletti L. Epidemiology and antibiotic resistance of late prosthetic knee and hip infections. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:2496–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE. Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1645–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Fernández J, Navasa M, Gómez J, Colmenero J, Vila J, Arroyo V, et al. Bacterial infections in cirrhosis: epidemiological changes with invasive procedures and norfloxacin prophylaxis. Hepatology. 2002;35:140–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bajaj JS, Wade JB, Gibson DP, Heuman DM, Thacker LR, Sterling RK, et al. The multi-dimensional burden of cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy on patients and caregivers. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1646–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. De Leo C, Eftimiadi C, Schito GC. Rapid disappearance from the intestinal tract of bacteria resistant to rifaximin. Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1986;12:979–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Shah NB, Tande AJ, Patel R, Berbari EF. Anaerobic prosthetic joint infection. Anaerobe. 2015;36:1–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pandey R, Berendt AR, Athanasou NA. Histological and microbiological findings in non infected and infected revision arthroplasty tissues. The OSIRIS Collaborative Study Group. Oxford Skeletal Infection Research and Intervention Service. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2000;120(10):570–4.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Uta S. Koepf and Sebastian Scheidt have contributed equally to this work

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Germany

    Uta S. Koepf, Christian P. Strassburg & Philipp Lutz

  2. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Sebastian Scheidt, Dieter C. Wirtz & Thomas M. Randau

  3. Institute for Medical Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Gunnar T. R. Hischebeth

Authors
  1. Uta S. Koepf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastian Scheidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gunnar T. R. Hischebeth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christian P. Strassburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dieter C. Wirtz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Thomas M. Randau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Philipp Lutz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

USK—conceptualization, writing, statistics, data management, review process. SS—conceptualization, writing, statistics, data management, review process. CPS—conceptualization, review process. DCW—review process. TMR—review process. GTRH—review process. PL—conceptualization, writing, data management, review process. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Uta S. Koepf.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study and waiver of the informed consent was approved by the local ethic committee (Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty, University Hospital Bonn, University of Bonn, Building 74/4th floor, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53105 Bonn, Germany, Number of ethic committees statement concerning this study: 330/19). The study was conducted according to the principles of the declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

All authors declare that they have no competing financial, professional, or personal interests that might have influenced the performance or presentation of the work described in this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koepf, U.S., Scheidt, S., Hischebeth, G.T.R. et al. Increased rate of enteric bacteria as cause of periprosthetic joint infections in patients with liver cirrhosis. BMC Infect Dis 22, 389 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07379-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07379-2

Keywords

BMC Infectious Diseases

ISSN: 1471-2334

Contact us