Why was prophylaxis deemed necessary for 2 years after joint replacement

[Avers]

I know that advice has now changed and that antibiotic cover for dental treatment is now no longer deemed necessary. But, can anyone tell me why dental treatment was considered risky for the first 2 years after joint replacement (thus requiring antibiotic cover) but not considered risky after that 2 year period.

 

[Jaycey]

@Avers The use of prophylaxis antibiotics before any dental treatment is a very old debate. And the "first 2 years" is an arbitrary number. Nearly every surgeon once recommended antibiotics - some for 2 out, some for 5 and some for a lifetime. But studies revealed that this use of antibiotics dis not necessarily benefit the patient. Indeed the overuse of antibiotics resulted in the emergence of these "super bugs" we hear about. Infections resist to antibiotics are a major risk - especially for patients in recovery mode.

Here's an article from our Library: Evidence insufficient to recommend prophylactic antibiotics for dental procedures

 

[Avers]

Thanks for your response and the articles.