FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Equine Vet J / Comparison of equine synovial sepsis rate following intrasyn...
Equine veterinary journal2021; 54(3); 523-530; doi: 10.1111/evj.13485

Comparison of equine synovial sepsis rate following intrasynovial injection in ambulatory versus hospital settings.

Abstract: Frequency of synovial sepsis in horses following intrasynovial injection has been reported, but not compared with respect to the environment in which the injection was performed. Objective: To describe occurrence of synovial sepsis following intrasynovial injections performed in ambulatory vs hospital settings. Methods: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: Records from the Colorado State University were evaluated (2014-2018) and horses receiving intrasynovial injections were identified. Patients presenting for septic synovial structures were excluded. Patient signalment, primary supervising service, medications injected, location (field/hospital), whether synovial sepsis resulted, and at what time sepsis was recognised were recorded. Logistic regression was used to estimate the contributions of covariates to the occurrence of synovial sepsis following injection. Results: During the study period, 3866 intrasynovial injections were performed in 1112 horses during 1623 sessions, with 643/1623 sessions performed in the field. The most frequently used medications were hyaluronate (846/1623, 52.1%), triamcinolone acetonide (780 /1623, 48.1%) and amikacin sulfate (684/1623, 42.1%). Four horses developed synovial sepsis (0.2% sessions, 0.1% synovial structures); 3/4 were injected in the field, 2/4 received antibiotics with the injection. The frequency of septic synovitis was 10.4 cases per 10 000 injections, or 1 in 967 injections. All horses recovered following synovial lavage and antibiotic therapy. Performing injections in the field (P = .2) or without antibiotics (P = .7) did not alter the risk of synovial sepsis. Conclusions: Limitations include the retrospective nature of data collection and low rate of infection overall, which prohibited evaluation of individual medication regimes as factors associated with resultant infection. Conclusions: The frequency of synovial sepsis in this population of horses was not higher when injections were performed in the field or without concurrent antibiotic administration. These data may help to inform practitioners and clients regarding the relative potential risk of complications following intrasynovial medication in different environmental settings.
© 2021 EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2021-07-08 PubMed ID: 34115426PubMed Central: PMC8664890DOI: 10.1111/evj.13485Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research aims to identify if there’s a difference in the rate of joint infection, or synovial sepsis, in horses after they receive joint injections in a hospital setting vs. an ambulatory or field setting. The findings conclude that there’s no significant statistical difference in the infection rates between the two settings.

Research Purpose and Methodology

The study seeks to provide a comparison of the frequency of synovial sepsis – a severe infection in the joint space, in horses following intrasynovial injection in different environments specifically, ambulatory (or field) settings and hospital settings.

The method employed was a retrospective cohort study where records from 2014-2018 from the Colorado State University were carefully scrutinized. The records of horses that had received intrasynovial injections were specifically targeted.

  • Variables such as patient signalment, supervising service, medications injected, location of injection, instances of synovial sepsis and its recognition time were noted.
  • Synovial sepsis occurrences following the injections were estimated via logistic regression to determine the impact of the variables.

Results and Findings

In the period under consideration, 3866 intrasynovial injections were performed on 1112 horses during 1623 sessions; noteworthy is that 643 of these sessions were performed out on the field.

  • The most commonly utilized medications were hyaluronate, triamcinolone acetonide, and amikacin sulfate.
  • A small number of horses (4 out of 1112) developed synovial sepsis; it should be noted that majority of these (3 out of 4) were injected in the field, and two had received antibiotics with the injection.
  • The study deduced the frequency of septic synovitis at 10.4 cases per 10 000 injections or 1 in 967 injections.
  • After synovial lavage and antibiotic therapy, all horses recovered.
  • The researchers found that performing injections in the field (P = .2) or without antibiotics (P = .7) did not significantly increase the risk of developing synovial sepsis.

Conclusions

There were some limitations to the study primarily its retrospective nature and a rather low rate of infection overall which resulted in the inability to evaluate individual medication regimes as potential infection factors.

Despite these limitations, the researchers concluded that administering injections in the field or without simultaneous administration of antibiotics did not lead to a significant increase in the frequency of synovial sepsis.

This information proves invaluable to both veterinarians and horse owners in their decision-making process regarding the relative potential risk of complications related to administering intrasynovial medication.

Cite This Article

APA
Krause DM, Pezzanite LM, Griffenhagen GM, Hendrickson DA. (2021). Comparison of equine synovial sepsis rate following intrasynovial injection in ambulatory versus hospital settings. Equine Vet J, 54(3), 523-530. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.13485

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 54
Issue: 3
Pages: 523-530

Researcher Affiliations

Krause, Danielle M
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Pezzanite, Lynn M
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Griffenhagen, Gregg M
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Hendrickson, Dean A
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Anti-Bacterial Agents / therapeutic use
  • Horse Diseases / drug therapy
  • Horse Diseases / epidemiology
  • Horse Diseases / etiology
  • Horses
  • Hospitals
  • Humans
  • Injections, Intra-Articular / adverse effects
  • Injections, Intra-Articular / veterinary
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Sepsis / complications
  • Sepsis / epidemiology
  • Sepsis / veterinary
  • Synovial Fluid

Grant Funding

  • TL1 TR002533 / NCATS NIH HHS
  • Colorado State University Young Investigator Program in Companion Animal Studies
  • 5TL1TR002533-02 / CCTSI NIH/NCATS CTSA
  • 5T32 OD010437-19 / NIH HHS
  • T32 OD010437 / NIH HHS
  • Carolyn Quan and Porter Bennett

Conflict of Interest Statement

Authors’ declaration of interests. No competing interests have been declared.

References

This article includes 43 references
  1. Wahl K, Adams SB, Moore GE. Contamination of joints with tissue debris and hair after arthrocentesis: the effect of needle insertion angle, spinal needle gauge, and insertion of spinal needles with and without a stylet.. Vet Surg 2012 Apr;41(3):391-8.
    pubmed: 22380793doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950x.2011.00969.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  2. Schneider RK, Bramlage LR, Moore RM, Mecklenburg LM, Kohn CW, Gabel AA. A retrospective study of 192 horses affected with septic arthritis/tenosynovitis.. Equine Vet J 1992 Nov;24(6):436-42.
    pubmed: 1459056doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1992.tb02873.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  3. Stewart S and Richardson D. In: Auer JA, Stick JA, Kummerle JM, Prange T, eds. Auer and Stick Equine Surgery. 5th ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier; 2019:77–103.
  4. Wright IM, Smith MR, Humphrey DJ, Eaton-Evans TC, Hillyer MH. Endoscopic surgery in the treatment of contaminated and infected synovial cavities.. Equine Vet J 2003 Sep;35(6):613-9.
    pubmed: 14515964doi: 10.2746/042516403775467225google scholar: lookup
  5. Morton AJ. Diagnosis and treatment of septic arthritis.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2005 Dec;21(3):627-49, vi.
    pubmed: 16297725doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2005.08.001google scholar: lookup
  6. Gilbertie JM, Schnabel LV, Stefanovski D, Kelly DJ, Jacob ME, Schaer TP. Gram-negative multi-drug resistant bacteria influence survival to discharge for horses with septic synovial structures: 206 Cases (2010-2015).. Vet Microbiol 2018 Nov;226:64-73.
    pubmed: 30389045doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2018.10.009google scholar: lookup
  7. Amato-Gauci A, Ammon A. The First European Communicable Disease Epidemiological Report. Proceedings European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control Stockholm, Sweden, June 7. 2007.
  8. Herdan CL, Acke E, Dicken M, Archer RM, Forsyth SF, Gee EK, Pauwels FE. Multi-drug-resistant Enterococcus spp. as a cause of non-responsive septic synovitis in three horses.. N Z Vet J 2012 Sep;60(5):297-304.
    pubmed: 22506887doi: 10.1080/00480169.2011.651702google scholar: lookup
  9. Loncaric I, Künzel F, Licka T, Simhofer H, Spergser J, Rosengarten R. Identification and characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from Austrian companion animals and horses.. Vet Microbiol 2014 Jan 31;168(2-4):381-7.
    pubmed: 24332703doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2013.11.022google scholar: lookup
  10. Maddox TW, Clegg PD, Williams NJ, Pinchbeck GL. Antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from horses: Epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance.. Equine Vet J 2015 Nov;47(6):756-65.
    pubmed: 26084443doi: 10.1111/evj.12471google scholar: lookup
  11. Mallardo K, Nizza S, Fiorito F, Pagnini U, De Martino L. A comparative evaluation of methicillin-resistant staphylococci isolated from harness racing-horses, breeding mares and riding-horses in Italy.. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed 2013 Mar;3(3):169-73.
    pmc: PMC3631744pubmed: 23620832doi: 10.1016/s2221-1691(13)60044-1google scholar: lookup
  12. Singh BR. Prevalence of vancomycin resistance and multiple drug resistance in enterococci in equids in North India.. J Infect Dev Ctries 2009 Aug 30;3(7):498-503.
    pubmed: 19762967doi: 10.3855/jidc.467google scholar: lookup
  13. Slater JD. MRSA: an emerging equine problem?. Equine Vet J 2005 Nov;37(6):490-2.
    pubmed: 16295922doi: 10.2746/042516405775314790google scholar: lookup
  14. Spijk JN, Schmitt S, Schoster A. Infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria in an equine hospital (2012-2015). Equine Vet Educ 2019;31:653–658.
  15. Theelen MJ, Wilson WD, Edman JM, Magdesian KG, Kass PH. Temporal trends in prevalence of bacteria isolated from foals with sepsis: 1979-2010.. Equine Vet J 2014 Mar;46(2):169-73.
    pubmed: 23808819doi: 10.1111/evj.12131google scholar: lookup
  16. Van den Eede A, Martens A, Lipinska U, Struelens M, Deplano A, Denis O, Haesebrouck F, Gasthuys F, Hermans K. High occurrence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST398 in equine nasal samples.. Vet Microbiol 2009 Jan 1;133(1-2):138-44.
    pubmed: 18701224doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2008.06.021google scholar: lookup
  17. Van den Eede A, Hermans K, Van den Abeele A, Floré K, Dewulf J, Vanderhaeghen W, Crombé F, Butaye P, Gasthuys F, Haesebrouck F, Martens A. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on the skin of long-term hospitalised horses.. Vet J 2012 Aug;193(2):408-11.
    pubmed: 22264643doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.12.004google scholar: lookup
  18. Gillespie CC, Adams SB, Moore GE. Methods and Variables Associated with the Risk of Septic Arthritis Following Intra-Articular Injections in Horses: A Survey of Veterinarians.. Vet Surg 2016 Nov;45(8):1071-1076.
    pubmed: 27696461doi: 10.1111/vsu.12563google scholar: lookup
  19. Steel CM, Pannirselvam RR, Anderson GA. Risk of septic arthritis after intra-articular medication: a study of 16,624 injections in Thoroughbred racehorses.. Aust Vet J 2013 Jul;91(7):268-73.
    pubmed: 23782019doi: 10.1111/avj.12073google scholar: lookup
  20. Adams SB, Moore GE, Elrashidy M, Mohamed A, Snyder PW. Effect of needle size and type, reuse of needles, insertion speed, and removal of hair on contamination of joints with tissue debris and hair after arthrocentesis.. Vet Surg 2010 Aug;39(6):667-73.
    pubmed: 20345539doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950x.2010.00649.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  21. Sabino CV, Weese JS. Contamination of multiple-dose vials in a veterinary hospital.. Can Vet J 2006 Aug;47(8):779-82.
    pmc: PMC1524851pubmed: 16933556
  22. Zubrod CJ, Farnsworth KD, Oaks JL. Evaluation of arthrocentesis site bacterial flora before and after 4 methods of preparation in horses with and without evidence of skin contamination.. Vet Surg 2004 Sep-Oct;33(5):525-30.
    pubmed: 15362992doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950x.2004.04074.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  23. Hague BA, Honnas CM, Simpson RB, Peloso JG. Evaluation of skin bacterial flora before and after aseptic preparation of clipped and nonclipped arthrocentesis sites in horses.. Vet Surg 1997 Mar-Apr;26(2):121-5.
    pubmed: 9068162doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950x.1997.tb01474.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  24. Waxman SJ, Adams SB, Moore GE. Effect of needle brand, needle bevel grind, and silicone lubrication on contamination of joints with tissue and hair debris after arthrocentesis.. Vet Surg 2015 Apr;44(3):373-8.
    pubmed: 24702649doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950x.2014.12179.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  25. Smith LCR, Wylie CE, Palmer L, Ramzan PHL. Synovial sepsis is rare following intrasynovial medication in equine ambulatory practice.. Equine Vet J 2019 Sep;51(5):595-599.
    pubmed: 30589107doi: 10.1111/evj.13063google scholar: lookup
  26. Geirsson AJ, Statkevicius S, Víkingsson A. Septic arthritis in Iceland 1990-2002: increasing incidence due to iatrogenic infections.. Ann Rheum Dis 2008 May;67(5):638-43.
    pmc: PMC2563417pubmed: 17901088doi: 10.1136/ard.2007.077131google scholar: lookup
  27. von Essen R, Savolainen HA. Bacterial infection following intra-articular injection. A brief review.. Scand J Rheumatol 1989;18(1):7-12.
    pubmed: 2649978doi: 10.3109/03009748909095397google scholar: lookup
  28. Hollander JL. Intrasynovial corticosteroid therapy in arthritis.. Md State Med J 1970 Mar;19(3):62-6.
    pubmed: 5441259
  29. Seror P, Pluvinage P, d'Andre FL, Benamou P, Attuil G. Frequency of sepsis after local corticosteroid injection (an inquiry on 1160000 injections in rheumatological private practice in France).. Rheumatology (Oxford) 1999 Dec;38(12):1272-4.
    pubmed: 10587558doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/38.12.1272google scholar: lookup
  30. Gray RG, Tenenbaum J, Gottlieb NL. Local corticosteroid injection treatment in rheumatic disorders.. Semin Arthritis Rheum 1981 May;10(4):231-54.
    pubmed: 6787706doi: 10.1016/0049-0172(81)90001-9google scholar: lookup
  31. Bohlin AM, Kristoffersen M, Toft N. Infectious arthritis following intra-articular injection in horses not receiving prophylactic antibiotics: a retrospective cohort study of 2833 medical records. Proc Am Assoc Equine Practnrs 2014;60:255–6.
  32. Ferris DJ, Frisbie DD, McIlwraith CW, Kawcak CE. Current joint therapy usage in equine practice: a survey of veterinarians 2009.. Equine Vet J 2011 Sep;43(5):530-5.
    pubmed: 21668486doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00324.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  33. Devika S, Jeyaseelan L, Sebastian G. Analysis of sparse data in logistic regression in medical research: A newer approach.. J Postgrad Med 2016 Jan-Mar;62(1):26-31.
    doi: 10.4103/0022-3859.173193pmc: PMC4944325pubmed: 26732193google scholar: lookup
  34. Heinze G, Ploner M, Jiricka L. logistf: Firth’s Bias-Reduced Logistic Regression. R package version 1.24 (2020).
  35. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2020).
  36. Lapointe JM, Laverty S, Lavoie JP. Septic arthritis in 15 standardbred racehorses after intra-articular injection.. Equine Vet J 1992 Nov;24(6):430-4.
    pubmed: 1459055doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1992.tb02872.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  37. Tulamo RM, Bramlage LR, Gabel AA. The influence of corticosteroids on sequential clinical and synovial fluid parameters in joints with acute infectious arthritis in the horse.. Equine Vet J 1989 Sep;21(5):332-7.
    pubmed: 2776719doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1989.tb02682.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  38. Steel CM. Equine synovial fluid analysis.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2008 Aug;24(2):437-54, viii.
    pubmed: 18652964doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2008.05.004google scholar: lookup
  39. Gustafson SB, McIlwraith CW, Jones RL. Comparison of the effect of polysulfated glycosaminoglycan, corticosteroids, and sodium hyaluronate in the potentiation of a subinfective dose of Staphylococcus aureus in the midcarpal joint of horses.. Am J Vet Res 1989 Dec;50(12):2014-7.
    pubmed: 2610426
  40. Gustafson SB, McIlwraith CW, Jones RL, Dixon-White HE. Further investigations into the potentiation of infection by intra-articular injection of polysulfated glycosaminoglycan and the effect of filtration and intra-articular injection of amikacin.. Am J Vet Res 1989 Dec;50(12):2018-22.
    pubmed: 2610427
  41. Adler DMT, Damborg P, Verwilghen DR. The antimicrobial activity of bupivacaine, lidocaine and mepivacaine against equine pathogens: An investigation of 40 bacterial isolates.. Vet J 2017 May;223:27-31.
    pubmed: 28671067doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2017.05.001google scholar: lookup
  42. McLauchlan J, Logie JR, Smylie HG. The role of clean air in wound infection acquired during operation.. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1976 Jul;143(1):6-8.
    pubmed: 936050
  43. Kuemmerle JM, Uhlig H, Kofler J. Severe acute inflammatory reaction (SAIR) of the fetlock joint after intraarticular hyaluronate injection in a horse.. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2006;19(4):236-8.
    pubmed: 17143396

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.