Antibiotic-loaded bone cement vs. plain cement as an infection prophylaxis in primary elective shoulder arthroplasty

Abstract

HypothesisThe use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ABC) in the setting of revision arthroplasty for deep infections is a broadly accepted practice. However, its use in the setting of primary arthroplasty continues to be controversial with few studies assessing the efficacy of ABC for primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The purpose of this study was to determine whether the use of ABC in primary TSA is associated with a difference in the risk of deep infections. MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from a United States integrated health-care system’s shoulder arthroplasty registry. Patients aged ≥18 years who underwent primary elective anatomic TSA for osteoarthritis or reverse TSA (RTSA) for rotator cuff arthropathy with implanted cement information were included in the study (2009-2020). We compared patients that received ABC to those who received plain cement and are at risk of revision due to deep infection within 5 years of follow-up using Cox proportional hazard regression weighted with the inverse propensity score, stratified by procedure type. ResultsThe study sample included 6409 TSAs for osteoarthritis and 779 RTSAs for rotator cuff arthropathy performed by 198 surgeons at 58 hospitals. In the TSA group, 20% received ABC; the cumulative infection probability at 5 years of follow-up was 0.5% and 0.6% for the ABC and plain cement groups, respectively. After covariate adjustment, no significant difference in infection risk was found (hazard ratio = 0.72, 95% confidence interval = 0.43-1.21, P = .216). In the RTSA group, 19% received ABC; the cumulative infection probability at 5 years of follow-up was 2.7% and 0.9% for the ABC and plain cement groups, respectively. After covariate adjustment, no significant difference in infection risk was found between the 2 cement groups (hazard ratio = 1.47, 95% confidence interval = 0.66-3.26, P = .341). ConclusionIn this study of more than 7000 primary elective shoulder arthroplasties performed in patients with a standard risk of infection, antibiotic bone cement did not confer any risk-reduction for periprosthetic infection when compared to plain bone cement. Different at-risk pathogen profiles may develop with prolonged use of antibiotic bone cement.