Wound Infections Following Implant Removal (WIFI)

In the Netherlands about 18,000 surgical procedures with implant removal are annually performed after fracture healing, of which 30-80% concern the foot, ankle and lower leg region. For clean surgical procedures, the rate of postoperative wound infections (POWIs) should be less than 5%. However, rates of 10-12% following implant removal, specifically after foot, ankle and lower leg fractures are reported. Currently, surgeons decide individually if antibiotics prophylaxis is given, since no guideline exists. This leads to undesirable practice variation. Therefore, the investigators propose a double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) in patients scheduled for implant removal following a foot, ankle or lower leg fracture, to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of a single gift of antibiotic prophylaxis. Primary outcome is a POWI within 30 days after implant removal. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, functional outcome at 30 days and 6 months after implant removal and costs. With 2 x 250 patients a decrease in POWI from 10% to 3.3% (expected rate in clean-contaminated elective orthopedic trauma procedures) can be detected (Power=80%, 2-sided alpha=5%, including 15% lost to follow up). If the assumption of the investigators, that prophylactic antibiotics prior to implant removal reduces the infectious complication rate, is confirmed by this RCT, this will offer a strong argument to adopt a single gift of antibiotic prophylaxis as standard practice of care. This will reduce the incidence of POWIs and consequently will lead to less physical and social disabilities and health care use. In addition, it will decrease the rate of use of empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics (and antibiotic resistance) prescribed upon suspicion or diagnosis of a POWI. A preliminary, conservative estimation suggests yearly cost savings in the Netherlands of €3.5 million per year.

The primary outcome variable is a POWI within 30 days after implant removal as defined by the criteria applied by the Centers for Disease and Control.

Functional outcome following implant removal as assessed with the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS). The LEFS can be used by clinicians as a measure of patients' initial function, ongoing progress and outcome, as well as to set functional goals. The LEFS can be used to evaluate the functional impairment of a patient with a disorder of one or both lower extremities. It can be used to monitor the patient over time and to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention

Health care resources utilization at baseline, 1 month and 6 months after implant removal (including amongst others, number of visits to the general practitioner and use of home care organizations) as measured by way of a combination of the Dutch iMTA Medical Consumption Questionnaire (iMCQ) and iMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ) (adapted to the study setting).

Costs (economic evaluation including budget impact analysis): the economic evaluation of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients scheduled for implant removal (following a foot, ankle or lower leg fracture) against no prophylaxis as its best alternative will be performed as a cost-effectiveness (CEA) as well as a cost-utility (CUA) analysis.

Inclusion Criteria: Patients ≥18 years and ≤75 years of all ethnic backgrounds Implant removal following foot, ankle and/or lower leg surgery Exclusion Criteria: Removing and re-implanting osteosynthesis material in the same session Active wound infection or (plate) fistula Antibiotic treatment at time of elective implant removal for a concomitant disease or infection A medical history of an allergic reaction to a cephalosporin, penicillin, or any other β-lactam antibiotic. Insufficient comprehension of the Dutch language to understand the patient information to make an informed decision to participate. Kidney disease (eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73m^2). Treatment with probenecide, anticoagulants (see SPC) Pregnancy and lactation

Backes M, Schep NW, Luitse JS, Goslings JC, Schepers T. Indications for implant removal following intra-articular calcaneal fractures and subsequent complications. Foot Ankle Int. 2013 Nov;34(11):1521-5. doi: 10.1177/1071100713502466. Epub 2013 Sep 13.

Backes M, Dingemans SA, Schep NW, Bloemers FW, Van Dijkman B, Garssen FP, Haverlag R, Hoogendoorn JM, Joosse P, Mirck B, Postma V, Ritchie E, Roerdink WH, Sintenie JB, Soesman NM, Sosef NL, Twigt BA, Van Veen RN, Van der Veen AH, Van Velde R, Vos DI, De Vries MR, Winkelhagen J, Goslings JC, Schepers T. Wound Infections Following Implant removal below the knee: the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis; the WIFI-trial, a multi-centre randomized controlled trial. BMC Surg. 2015 Feb 6;15:12. doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-15-12.

Backes M, Dingemans SA, Dijkgraaf MGW, van den Berg HR, van Dijkman B, Hoogendoorn JM, Joosse P, Ritchie ED, Roerdink WH, Schots JPM, Sosef NL, Spijkerman IJB, Twigt BA, van der Veen AH, van Veen RN, Vermeulen J, Vos DI, Winkelhagen J, Goslings JC, Schepers T; WIFI Collaboration Group. Effect of Antibiotic Prophylaxis on Surgical Site Infections Following Removal of Orthopedic Implants Used for Treatment of Foot, Ankle, and Lower Leg Fractures: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017 Dec 26;318(24):2438-2445. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.19343. Erratum In: JAMA. 2018 Mar 13;319(10 ):1051.