NCT04608916

Brief Summary

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

Trial Health

87
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
64

participants targeted

Target at P50-P75 for not_applicable

Timeline
Completed

Started Jun 2021

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
completed

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

October 25, 2020

Completed
4 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

October 29, 2020

Completed
7 months until next milestone

Study Start

First participant enrolled

June 1, 2021

Completed
1.4 years until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

November 1, 2022

Completed
1 month until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

December 1, 2022

Completed
Last Updated

April 11, 2023

Status Verified

April 1, 2023

Enrollment Period

1.4 years

First QC Date

October 25, 2020

Last Update Submit

April 10, 2023

Conditions

Keywords

Shoulder arthroplastyInfectionPeriprosthetic joint infectionCutibaterium acnesDiathermyElectrocautery

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

  • Proportions of positive C acnes cultures

    Proportions of positive C acnes cultures

    2 weeks following surgery

Study Arms (2)

Scalpel incision group

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

This group of patients will receive skin incision made with use of a scalpel blade.

Procedure: Using scalpel blade to make skin incision

Electrocautery incision group

EXPERIMENTAL

This group of patients will receive skin incision made with use of electrocautery.

Procedure: Using surgical diathermy to make skin incision

Interventions

Using surgical diathermy to make skin incision during shoulder arthroplasty

Electrocautery incision group

Using scaple blade to make skin incision during shoulder arthroplasty

Scalpel incision group

Eligibility Criteria

Age18 Years+
Sexmale
Healthy VolunteersNo
Age GroupsAdult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

  • Adult male patients (\>18 years old) who undergo primary shoulder arthroplasty (either anatomic or reverse shoulder arthroplasty)

You may not qualify if:

  • History of ipsilateral shoulder postoperative infection
  • Administration of any antibiotics within a month prior to the index procedure
  • Active acne at the surgical site
  • History of psoriatic or eczematous lesions about the shoulder area
  • Revision arthroplasty cases
  • Minors (\< 18 years old)
  • Female patients
  • Prisoners
  • Patients who cannot understand English enough to give an informed consent

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

University of Missouri

Columbia, Missouri, 65212, United States

Location

Related Publications (10)

  • Padegimas EM, Maltenfort M, Ramsey ML, Williams GR, Parvizi J, Namdari S. Periprosthetic shoulder infection in the United States: incidence and economic burden. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 May;24(5):741-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.11.044. Epub 2015 Jan 13.

    PMID: 25595360BACKGROUND
  • van Diek FM, Pruijn N, Spijkers KM, Mulder B, Kosse NM, Dorrestijn O. The presence of Cutibacterium acnes on the skin of the shoulder after the use of benzoyl peroxide: a placebo-controlled, double-blinded, randomized trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Apr;29(4):768-774. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.11.027.

    PMID: 32197765BACKGROUND
  • Foruria AM, Fox TJ, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Clinical meaning of unexpected positive cultures (UPC) in revision shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 May;22(5):620-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2012.07.017. Epub 2012 Sep 13.

    PMID: 22981448BACKGROUND
  • Achermann Y, Sahin F, Schwyzer HK, Kolling C, Wust J, Vogt M. Characteristics and outcome of 16 periprosthetic shoulder joint infections. Infection. 2013 Jun;41(3):613-20. doi: 10.1007/s15010-012-0360-4. Epub 2012 Nov 3.

    PMID: 23124880BACKGROUND
  • Horneff JG 3rd, Hsu JE, Voleti PB, O'Donnell J, Huffman GR. Propionibacterium acnes infection in shoulder arthroscopy patients with postoperative pain. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Jun;24(6):838-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.03.008.

    PMID: 25979553BACKGROUND
  • Falconer TM, Baba M, Kruse LM, Dorrestijn O, Donaldson MJ, Smith MM, Figtree MC, Hudson BJ, Cass B, Young AA. Contamination of the Surgical Field with Propionibacterium acnes in Primary Shoulder Arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Oct 19;98(20):1722-1728. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.01133.

    PMID: 27869623BACKGROUND
  • Ly J, Mittal A, Windsor J. Systematic review and meta-analysis of cutting diathermy versus scalpel for skin incision. Br J Surg. 2012 May;99(5):613-20. doi: 10.1002/bjs.8708. Epub 2012 Feb 24.

    PMID: 22367850BACKGROUND
  • Ismail A, Abushouk AI, Elmaraezy A, Menshawy A, Menshawy E, Ismail M, Samir E, Khaled A, Zakarya H, El-Tonoby A, Ghanem E. Cutting electrocautery versus scalpel for surgical incisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Surg Res. 2017 Dec;220:147-163. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.06.093. Epub 2017 Jul 26.

    PMID: 29180177BACKGROUND
  • Kearns SR, Connolly EM, McNally S, McNamara DA, Deasy J. Randomized clinical trial of diathermy versus scalpel incision in elective midline laparotomy. Br J Surg. 2001 Jan;88(1):41-4. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2001.01625.x.

    PMID: 11136307BACKGROUND
  • Hemsell DL, Hemsell PG, Nobles B, Johnson ER, Little BB, Heard M. Abdominal wound problems after hysterectomy with electrocautery vs. scalpel subcutaneous incision. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 1993;1(1):27-31. doi: 10.1155/S1064744993000079.

    PMID: 18476202BACKGROUND

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Bacterial InfectionsInfectionsFever

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Bacterial Infections and MycosesBody Temperature ChangesSigns and SymptomsPathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
SINGLE
Who Masked
OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
Purpose
PREVENTION
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
Associate Professor

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

October 25, 2020

First Posted

October 29, 2020

Study Start

June 1, 2021

Primary Completion

November 1, 2022

Study Completion

December 1, 2022

Last Updated

April 11, 2023

Record last verified: 2023-04

Data Sharing

IPD Sharing
Will not share

No plan to share IPD with other researchers

Locations