The effect of antibiotic-loaded bone cement on risk of revision following hip and knee arthroplasty

2021 ◽  
Vol 103-B (1) ◽  
pp. 7-15
Author(s):  
Muhamed M. Farhan-Alanie ◽  
Henry G. Burnand ◽  
Michael R. Whitehouse
Keyword(s):  
Bone Cement ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Revision Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Hip And Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Knee ◽  
Registry Report

Aims This study aimed to compare the effect of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) versus plain bone cement (PBC) on revision rates for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and all-cause revisions following primary elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies comparing ALBC versus PBC, reporting on revision rates for PJI or all-cause revision following primary elective THA or TKA. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO ID CRD42018107691). Results Nine studies and one registry report were identified, enabling the inclusion of 371,977 THA and 671,246 TKA. Pooled analysis for THA demonstrated ALBC was protective against revision for PJI compared with PBC (relative risk (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.77; p < 0.001), however, no differences were seen for all-cause revision rate (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.09; p = 0.100). For TKA, there were no significant differences in revision rates for PJI or all causes between ALBC and PBC (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.45; p = 0.730, and RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02; p = 0.060, respectively). Conclusion ALBC demonstrated a protective effect against revision for PJI compared with PBC in THA with no difference in all-cause revisions. No differences in revision rates for PJI and all-cause revision between ALBC and PBC for TKA were observed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):7–15.

scholarly journals A comprehensive comparison between cementless and cemented fixation in the total knee arthroplasty: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuan Liu ◽  
Yi Zeng ◽  
Yuangang Wu ◽  
Mingyang Li ◽  
Huiqi Xie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Functional Recovery ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Standard Form ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Total Knee

Abstract Background Whether the cement should be used in the total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was still in controversy. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of two kinds of fixation. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective/retrospective observational studies from PubMed (on 2019 September), EMBASE (on 2019 September), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Web of Science (on 2019 September) were searched. Only studies followed more than 2 years was included for the review. The PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane Handbook were adopted to assess the quality of the results reported in included studies to ensure that the results of our meta-analysis were reliable and veritable. The continuous and dichotomous outcomes were collected in a standard form, and the data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3 software. Finally, the results were presented in the Forest plots. Results Twenty-six studies involving 2369 patients in cementless TKA and 2654 patients in cemented TKA were included. The rate of revision was not significantly different in two groups (p = 0.55). More than eight reasons caused revision were found in our study, the aseptic loosing was the most common, followed by the periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), neither was significantly different (p = 0.88 and 0.45, respectively). While significantly better long-term functional recovery was found in cementless TKA in terms of Knee Society Function Score (p = 0.004) and manipulation under anesthesia (p = 0.007). Conclusion Cementless fixation did not decrease the rate of revision after the total knee arthroplasty compared with the cemented fixation, while the long-term functional recovery was significantly better in the cementless group.

scholarly journals Safety of intraarticular corticosteroid injection preceding hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis amid resolving COVID-19 arthroplasty restrictions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Cheok ◽  
Matthew Jennings ◽  
Alessandro Aprato ◽  
Narlaka Jayasekera ◽  
Ruurd L Jaarsma
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Corticosteroid Injection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Hip And Knee Arthroplasty

ABSTRACT Intraarticular corticosteroid injection (ICSI) is a widely practiced management for hip and knee osteoarthritis. Imposed delays to arthroplasty during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic have led us to postulate that many patients have opted for recent ICSI. We compared the odds of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients who were or were not administered ICSI within 12 months prior to hip or knee arthroplasty. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science was performed in February 2021, with studies assessing the effect of ICS on PJI rates identified. All studies, which included patients that received ICSI in the 12 months prior to primary hip and knee arthroplasty, were included. In total 12 studies were included: four studies with 209 353 hips and eight studies with 438 440 knees. ICSI administered in the 12 months prior to hip arthroplasty increased the odds of PJI [odds ratio (OR) = 1.17, P = 0.04]. This was not the case for knees. Subgroup analysis showed significantly higher odds of PJI in both hip [OR = 1.45, P = 0.002] and knee arthroplasty [OR = 2.04; P = 0.04] when ICSI was within the preceding 3 months of surgery. A significantly higher odds of PJI were seen in patients receiving ICSI within the 12 months prior to hip arthroplasty. Subgroup analysis showed increased odds of PJI in both hip and knee arthroplasty, in patients receiving ICSI within 3 months prior to their arthroplasty. We recommend delaying knee arthroplasty for at least 3 months after ICSI and possibly longer for hip arthroplasty. Level of Evidence Level III - Systematic Review of Level II and III Studies.

Negative pressure wound therapy in total hip and knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 791-797 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Wang ◽  
Xin Xu ◽  
Jian-gang Cao ◽  
Jun Liu
Keyword(s):  
Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Negative Pressure Wound Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Site Infection ◽  
Wound Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Hip And Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Knee

Aim: To assess the efficiency and safety of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in the total hip and knee arthroplasty, we conducted a meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials. Methods: Potential academic articles were identified from the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Springer and ScienceDirect. Secondary sources were identified from the references of the included literature. RevMan 5.1 was used to analyze the pooled data. Results: Six randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed more superficial surgical site infection and blisters in patients with total knee arthroplasty. There were no significant differences between two groups in total infection and total complications. Conclusion: NPWT decreased the incidence of superficial surgical site infection. More blisters were noticed in patients with NPWT after total knee arthroplasty.

scholarly journals Does tourniquet use affect the periprosthetic bone cement penetration in total knee arthroplasty? A meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chao Lu ◽  
Min Song ◽  
Jin Chen ◽  
Congcong Li ◽  
Wenzheng Lin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Bone Cement ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Knee Prosthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Blood Loss ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Total Knee

Abstract Background A tourniquet is a device commonly used to control massive hemorrhage during knee replacement surgery. However, the question remains whether the use of tourniquets affects the permeability of the bone cement around the knee prosthesis. Moreover, the long-term effects and stability of the knee prosthesis are still debatable. The aim of this study was to examine whether the use of a tourniquet increases the thickness of the cement mantle and affects the postoperative blood loss and pain during primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using meta-analysis. Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CNKI, and Wang Fang databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on primary TKA, from inception to November 2019. All RCTs in primary TKA with and without a tourniquet were included. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.2 software. Results A total of eight RCTs (677 knees) were analyzed. We found no significant difference in the age and sex of the patients. The results showed that the application of tourniquet affects the thickness of the bone cement around the tibial prosthesis (WMD = 0.16, 95%CI = 0.11 to 0.21, p < 0.00001). However, in our study, there was no significant difference in postoperative blood loss between the two groups was observed (WMD = 12.07, 95%CI = − 78.63 to 102.77, p = 0.79). The use of an intraoperative tourniquet can increase the intensity of postoperative pain (WMD = 1.34, 95%, CI = 0.32 to 2.36, p = 0.01). Conclusions Tourniquet application increases the thickness of the bone cement around the prosthesis and may thus increase the stability and durability of the prosthesis after TKA. The application of an intraoperative tourniquet can increase the intensity of postoperative pain.

scholarly journals Detailed Revision Risk Analysis after Single- vs. Two-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Retrospective Tertiary Center Analysis

Antibiotics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 1177
Author(s):  
Lars-Rene Tuecking ◽  
Julia Silligmann ◽  
Peter Savov ◽  
Mohamed Omar ◽  
Henning Windhagen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Periprosthetic Joint Infection ◽  
Revision Rate ◽  
Joint Infection ◽  
Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Tertiary Center ◽  
Total Knee

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains one of the most common causes of revision knee arthroplasty. Controversy continues to surround the proper operative technique of PJI in knee arthroplasty with single- or two-stage replacement. Significant variations are seen in the eradication rates of PJI and in implant survival rates. This detailed retrospective analysis of a single tertiary center is intended to provide further data and insight comparing single- and two-stage revision surgery. A retrospective analysis of all revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgeries from 2013 to 2019 was performed and screened with respect to single- or two-stage TKA revisions. Single- and two-stage revisions were analyzed with regard to implant survival, revision rate, microbiological spectrum, and other typical demographic characteristics. A total of 63 patients were included, with 15 patients undergoing single-stage revision and 48 patients undergoing two-stage revision. The mean follow-up time was 40.7 to 43.7 months. Statistically, no difference was found between both groups in overall survival (54.4% vs. 70.1%, p = 0.68) and implant survival with respect to reinfection (71.4% vs. 82.4%, p = 0.48). Further, high reinfection rates were found for patients with difficult-to-treat organisms and low- to semi-constrained implant types, in comparison to constrained implant types. A statistically comparable revision rate for recurrence of infection could be shown for both groups, although a tendency to higher reinfection rate for single-stage change was evident. The revision rate in this single-center study was comparably high, which could be caused by the high comorbidity and high proportion of difficult-to-treat bacteria in patients at a tertiary center. In this patient population, the expectation of implant survival should be critically discussed with patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document