The Impact of Patient-Reported Penicillin Allergy on Risk for Surgical Site Infection in Total Joint Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Penicillin (PCN) allergy is reported in 10% to 20% of the population; studies show that only 1% to 3% of patients have a true allergy. Most patients reporting a PCN allergy receive second-line antibiotic prophylaxis preoperatively, which raises concerns about antimicrobial efficacy. Studies also suggest that second-line antibiotics may increase the rate of surgical site infection (SSI). In this study we aim to analyze the effect of PCN allergy on antibiotic type prescribed and SSI in our total joint arthroplasty population. METHODS: A retrospective review of 4,903 primary total hip and total knee arthroplasty performed from January 2015 to June 2017 in a single institution. A detailed chart review was performed to identify reported reactions and antibiotic prescribed. RESULTS: Seven hundred ninety-six patients (16.2%) reported a PCN allergy; the reactions were classified into three tiers. Six hundred fifteen patients (12.5%) reported an IgE-mediated allergy, hypersensitivity, or a possible allergy; 89 (1.8%) reported an adverse effect; and 92 (1.9%) had an unknown reaction. Patients reporting a PCN allergy were less likely to receive cefazolin (94.9 versus 6.9%; P < 0.001) and more likely to receive clindamycin (1.1 versus 80.7%; P < 0.001) or vancomycin (4.0 versus 12.4%; P < 0.001). There was no difference in infection rate by reported PCN allergy (0.6 versus 0.4%; P = 0.473) or antibiotic prescribed (0.5 versus 0.6%; P = 0.4817). CONCLUSION: No patient with a PCN allergy and given cefazolin experienced a reaction; based on reported reactions, most patients with a PCN allergy can safely receive first-line antibiotic therapy. In this population, PCN allergy and second-line antibiotic therapy did not influence the rate of SSI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".