Dataset Information

A systematic review and meta-analysis of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement use in primary total hip or knee arthroplasty.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Antibiotic-impregnated bone cement (AIBC) has been widely used for the treatment of infected revision arthroplasty, but its routine use in primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) remains considerably controversial. With this meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials, we intended to assess the antimicrobial efficacy and safety of AIBC for its prophylactic use in primary TJA.

Methods

A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CBMdisc and the Cochrane Library until June, 2013. The studies were divided into two sub-groups according to the type of the control group. Outcomes of interest included postoperative infection rates, radiographic outcomes and clinical joint score. Study quality was evaluated using the Jadad scale (five points).

Results

In total, eight studies were included, with a sample size of 6,381 arthroplasties. The overall pooled data demonstrated that, compared with the control (plain cement or systemic antibiotic), AIBC did not reveal an advantage in decreasing the rate of superficial infection (relative risk [RR] = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.13-1.91; P=0.004), while there were significant differences in deep infection rate between the AIBC and control group (RR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.97; P=0.04). For the analysis of gentamicin and cefuroxime subgroups, the gentamicin was superior to the cefuroxime in reducing deep infection rate (P=0.0005 versus P= 0.10). However, no significant differences were found in their radiographic outcomes and clinical joint score.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis had proven that the prophylactic use of AIBC could lower the deep infection rate in primary TJA, while AIBC did not show an improvement in reducing the superficial infection rate compared with the control. More sufficiently powered studies would be required to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of AIBC for primary TJA.

SUBMITTER: Wang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3861452 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review and meta-analysis of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement use in primary total hip or knee arthroplasty.

Wang Jiaxing J Zhu Chen C Cheng Tao T Peng Xiaochun X Zhang Wen W Qin Hui H Zhang Xianlong X

PloS one 20131212 12

<h4>Background</h4>Antibiotic-impregnated bone cement (AIBC) has been widely used for the treatment of infected revision arthroplasty, but its routine use in primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) remains considerably controversial. With this meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials, we intended to assess the antimicrobial efficacy and safety of AIBC for its prophylactic use in primary TJA.<h4>Methods</h4>A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CBMdisc and the Cochra ...[more]

PMID: 24349353

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeAntibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) was usually used to prevent periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in primary total knee arthroplasty (PTKA), but whether to use ALBC or plain bone cement in PTKA remains unclear. We aimed to compare the occurrence rate of PJI using two different cements, and to investigate the efficacy of different antibiotic types and doses administered in preventing surgical site infection (SSI) with ALBC.MethodsThe availability of ALBC for preventing PJI was evaluated by using a systematic review and meta-analysis referring to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Existing articles until December 2021 involving PTKA patients with both ALBC and plain bone cement cohorts were scanned by searching "total knee arthroplasty", "antibiotic-loaded cement", "antibiotic prophylaxis", "antibiotic-impregnated cement" and "antibiotic-laden cement" in the database of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Subgroup analysis included the effectiveness of different antibiotic types and doses in preventing SSI with ALBC. The modified Jadad scale was employed to score the qualities of included articles.ResultsEleven quantitative studies were enrolled, including 34,159 knees undergoing PTKA. The meta-analysis results demonstrated that the use of prophylactic ALBC could significantly reduce the prevalence of deep incisional SSI after PTKA, whereas there was no significant reduction in the rate of superficial incisional SSI. Moreover, gentamicin-loaded cement was effective in preventing deep incisional SSI, and the use of high-dose ALBC significantly reduced the rate of deep incisional SSI after PTKA. Besides, no significant adverse reactions and complications were stated during the use of ALBC in PTKA.ConclusionThe preventive application of ALBC during PTKA could reduce the rates of deep PJI. Furthermore, bone cement containing gentamicin and high-dose ALBC could even better prevent deep infection after PTKA. However, the existing related articles are mostly single-center and retrospective studies, and further high-quality ones are needed for confirmation.

Project description:IntroductionThe current evidence on the efficacy of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in reducing the risk of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) after primary joint reconstruction is insufficient. In several European countries, the use of ALBC is routine practice unlike in the USA where ALBC use is not approved in low-risk patients. Therefore, we designed a double-blinded pragmatic multicentre register-based randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to investigate the effects of ALBC compared with plain bone cement in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).Methods and analysisA minimum of 9,172 patients undergoing full-cemented primary TKA will be recruited and equally randomised into the ALBC group and the plain bone cement group. This trial will be conducted in Norwegian hospitals that routinely perform cemented primary TKA. The primary outcome will be risk of revision surgery due to PJI at 1-year of follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be: risk of revision due to any reason including aseptic loosening at 1, 6, 10 and 20 years of follow-up; patient-related outcome measures like function, pain, satisfaction and health-related quality of life at 1, 6 and 10 years of follow-up; risk of changes in the microbial pattern and resistance profiles of organisms cultured in subsequent revisions at 1, 6, 10 and 20 years of follow-up; cost-effectiveness of routine ALBC versus plain bone cement use in primary TKA. We will use 1:1 randomisation with random permuted blocks and stratify by participating hospitals to randomise patients to receive ALBC or plain bone cement. Inclusion, randomisation and follow-up will be through the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.Ethics and disseminationThe trial was approved by the Western Norway Regional Committees on Medical and Health Research Ethics (reference number: 2019/751/REK vest) on 21 June 2019. The findings of this trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Trial registration numberNCT04135170.

Project description:BACKGROUND:To prevent postoperative infection the use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is common ground. Type of antibiotic used and duration of prophylaxis are subject to debate. In case of suspected early periprosthetic infection a debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure is treatment of first choice. This study evaluated the antibiotic prophylaxis and DAIR treatment protocols nationwide as well as reporting of these DAIR procedures to the national joint registry. METHODS:All institutions that performed total hip or knee arthroplasty were contacted to complete a 16-question online survey. Questions included availability of a protocol, type and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis used and tendency to register infectious complications in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. RESULTS:All ninety-nine consulted institutions responded to this survey. All but one institutions have a standardized hospital based protocol for antibiotic prophylaxis in primary total hip or knee arthroplasty. Cefazolin was antibiotic prophylaxis of choice in ninety-four institutions for both primary hip and knee arthroplasty. In ten institutions one preoperative gift of antibiotic prophylaxis was administered. A protocol describing treatment when suspecting early periprosthetic joint infection was present in seventy-one institutions. When performing a DAIR procedure modular parts were exchanged in seventy institutions in case of a hip prosthesis and in eighty-one institutions in case of a knee prosthesis. Sixty-three institutions register DAIR procedures in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. INTERPRETATION:In contradiction to the results of a recent study in Great Britain, we have found only little variety in availability of protocols and in the type of antibiotic used as prophylaxis in primary total hip and knee arthroplasty in The Netherlands. Not every institution has a protocol for treatment in suspicion of early infection. Although mobile parts are exchanged in the majority of cases, there appears to be an underreporting of DAIR procedures in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.

Dataset Information

A systematic review and meta-analysis of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement use in primary total hip or knee arthroplasty.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A systematic review and meta-analysis of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement use in primary total hip or knee arthroplasty.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets