Antibiotic Cement in Arthroplasty: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
arthroplasty
cement
infection
periprosthetic joint infection
total joint arthroplasty
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Apr 2020
29 Apr 2020
Historique:
entrez:
4
6
2020
pubmed:
4
6
2020
medline:
4
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Introduction Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following arthroplasty surgery is a devastating complication. Antibiotic cement has been proposed as a way to reduce PJI rates. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to review all of the available randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence on the use of antibiotic cement in arthroplasty. Methods PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched. All records were screened in triplicate. Eligible RCTs were included. Data regarding study characteristics, patient demographics, and rates of superficial and deep infection were collected. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool 2.0. Results Five RCTs were included (n = 4,397). Four studies compared antibiotic cement to plain cement while one study compared high-dose dual-antibiotic (HDDA) cement to low-dose single-antibiotic (LDSA) cement. The mean age of included patients was 76.4 years (range: 68-83). There was no significant difference in superficial infection rates between antibiotic and plain cement (odds ratio (OR): 1.33, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.77-2.30, p = 0.3). There was a large but non-significant reduction in deep infection rates for antibiotic cement (OR: 0.20, 95%CI: 0.03-1.32, p = 0.09). There was a significantly lower rate of infection with HDDA as compared to LDSA (OR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.09-0.88, p = 0.041). Conclusion The available evidence from RCTs reveals a potential benefit for antibiotic cement in arthroplasty surgery, though this difference is non-significant and highly imprecise. Furthermore, HDDA cement was significantly more effective than LDSA cement. There is a need for large, pragmatic trials on this topic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32489747
doi: 10.7759/cureus.7893
pmc: PMC7255530
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e7893Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020, Ekhtiari et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared financial relationships, which are detailed in the next section.
Références
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Oct;34(10):2308-2312
pubmed: 31230955
Lancet. 2007 Oct 27;370(9597):1508-19
pubmed: 17964352
Microbiol Rev. 1990 Mar;54(1):75-87
pubmed: 2181260
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 28;13(11):e0207260
pubmed: 30485337
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001 Jul;83(5):691-5
pubmed: 11476307
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 May;84(5):759-62
pubmed: 12004017
Bone Joint J. 2016 Nov;98-B(11):1534-1541
pubmed: 27803231
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008 May;16(5):283-93
pubmed: 18460689
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Oct;24(10):3168-3174
pubmed: 27600633
NCHS Data Brief. 2015 Feb;(186):1-8
pubmed: 25714040
Bone Joint J. 2019 Nov;101-B(11):1331-1347
pubmed: 31674244
Acta Orthop. 2017 Apr;88(2):158-165
pubmed: 27781564
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Mar 1;91(3):628-33
pubmed: 19255223
Biomatter. 2012 Oct-Dec;2(4):176-94
pubmed: 23507884
J Arthroplasty. 2012 Sep;27(8 Suppl):61-5.e1
pubmed: 22554729
J Arthroplasty. 2010 Oct;25(7):1078-82
pubmed: 20381287
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018 Oct 15;26(20):727-734
pubmed: 30161058
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Nov;475(11):2623-2631
pubmed: 28236084
World J Orthop. 2017 Dec 18;8(12):881-890
pubmed: 29312846
Orthop Clin North Am. 2016 Oct;47(4):661-71
pubmed: 27637652
Orthopedics. 2014 Nov;37(11):e999-1005
pubmed: 25361377
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018 Oct 2;19(1):352
pubmed: 30285692
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 May 1;95(9):769-74
pubmed: 23636182
Arthroplast Today. 2017 Mar 14;3(2):67-69
pubmed: 28695176
Am J Surg. 2005 Apr;189(4):395-404
pubmed: 15820449
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 May;86(5):963-74
pubmed: 15118039