Routine use of commercial antibiotic-loaded bone cement in primary total joint arthroplasty: a critical analysis of the current evidence.
Antibiotic-loaded bone cement
adjuvant
infection
total joint arthroplasty
Journal
Annals of translational medicine
ISSN: 2305-5839
Titre abrégé: Ann Transl Med
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101617978
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
entrez:
10
4
2019
pubmed:
10
4
2019
medline:
10
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Antibiotic-loaded cement (ABLC) has been widely utilized as an adjuvant treatment for patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) but has also evolved to play a prophylactic role against infection in primary total joint arthroplasties (TJA). Nevertheless, there is currently a paucity of studies that systematically investigated this concept. This review aimed at answering the following questions: (I) Can routine use of ABLC help reduce the current infection rates in primary TJA? (II) What are the risks associated with this approach? And (III) can routine use be justified in primary TJA from an economic standpoint? Multiple databases were queried including PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO Host, and SCOPUS. Studies published between January 1, 1990 and March 31, 2018 were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting: (I) clinical outcomes of routine use of ABLC in primary hip and knee arthroplasty with 2-year minimum follow-up, (II) complications related to the use of ABLC, (III) cost of using ABLC. The final analysis included 24 studies. Data from multiple studies demonstrate contradictory results for infection rates when ABLC is used in all primary procedures with a majority of studies showing similar infection rates between ABLC and plain cement. The main concerns associated with routine use of ABLC are negative effects on the mechanical stability of cement, possible systemic and local toxicity of the absorbed antibiotic, and development of resistant bacterial strains. However, current literature has not clinically validated these concerns. Lastly, with an estimated increase in 117 million dollars with the routine use of ABLC in only 50% of TJAs performed each year, it is difficult to justify the use of ABLC without clear superiority in reducing infection. The use of ABLC has undeniably changed the way orthopaedic surgeons deal with PJI today. However, the large-scale, prophylactic use of ABLC in primary TJAs requires further research and justification.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30963068
doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.11.50
pii: atm-07-04-73
pmc: PMC6409235
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
73Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: MA Mont: board or committee member of AAOS; paid consultant of Abbott, Cymedica, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Pacira, Performance Dynamics Inc., Sage; paid consultant and research support of DJ Orthopaedics, Johnson & Johnson, Ongoing Care Solutions, Orthosensor, TissueGene; editorial or governing board of Journal of Arthroplasty, Journal of Knee Surgery; IP royalties of Microport; research support of National Institutes of Health (NIAMS & NICHD); editorial or governing board of Orthopedics, Surgical Techniques International; stock or stock options of Peerwell; IP royalties, paid consultant and research support of Stryker. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Acta Orthop Scand. 2000 Dec;71(6):625-9
pubmed: 11145392
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 May;84-A(5):759-62
pubmed: 12004017
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002 Jul;84(5):758-60
pubmed: 12188500
Acta Orthop Scand. 2002 Oct;73(5):531-8
pubmed: 12440496
J Orthop Trauma. 2003 Mar;17(3):212-6
pubmed: 12621263
Clin Infect Dis. 2003 May 1;36(9):1157-61
pubmed: 12715311
Acta Orthop Scand. 2003 Dec;74(6):644-51
pubmed: 14763692
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2004 Apr;33(4):190-8; discussion 198
pubmed: 15132327
J Arthroplasty. 2004 Jun;19(4 Suppl 1):69-72
pubmed: 15190553
J Arthroplasty. 2004 Jun;19(4 Suppl 1):73-7
pubmed: 15190554
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Oct;(427):101-6
pubmed: 15552144
Orthopedics. 2004 Dec;27(12):1289-91
pubmed: 15633960
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Feb;87(2):268-72
pubmed: 15687146
Orthop Nurs. 2005 May-Jun;24(3):174-9; quiz 180-1
pubmed: 15928524
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Nov;88(11):2487-500
pubmed: 17079409
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):780-5
pubmed: 17403800
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Jan;91(1):128-33
pubmed: 19122087
J Arthroplasty. 2009 Sep;24(6 Suppl):44-7
pubmed: 19577881
J Arthroplasty. 2010 Sep;25(6 Suppl):103-7
pubmed: 20570103
J Arthroplasty. 1990 Jun;5(2):169-72
pubmed: 2193113
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Apr;94(4):497-503
pubmed: 22434466
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014 Jul;22(7):1585-90
pubmed: 23135413
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 May 1;95(9):769-74
pubmed: 23636182
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Oct;471(10):3214-22
pubmed: 23775569
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Jan;472(1):162-8
pubmed: 23884803
Bone Joint J. 2013 Nov;95-B(11 Suppl A):77-83
pubmed: 24187359
Bone Joint J. 2014 Jan;96-B(1):65-9
pubmed: 24395313
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jun;29(6):1123-7
pubmed: 24418770
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jan;473(1):8-14
pubmed: 24923669
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989 Nov;71(5):851-5
pubmed: 2584258
J Biomed Mater Res. 1989 Apr;23(4):379-97
pubmed: 2708414
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Nov;474(11):2441-2447
pubmed: 27488378
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 19;12(7):e0180090
pubmed: 28723917
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987 May;69(3):355-60
pubmed: 3584184
Int Orthop. 1987;11(3):241-3
pubmed: 3623762
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979 Jun;(141):96-101
pubmed: 477129
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1981;63-B(3):342-53
pubmed: 7021561
J Orthop Trauma. 1995;9(5):401-6
pubmed: 8537843
J Arthroplasty. 1998 Jan;13(1):114-5
pubmed: 9493549
J Arthroplasty. 1999 Jan;14(1):9-20
pubmed: 9926947
J Biomed Mater Res. 1976 Nov;10(6):929-38
pubmed: 993228