Antimicrobial 3D printed implants for periprosthetic joint infections.

Background Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a widely used technique, the purpose of which is to improve or eliminate knee pain produced by osteoarthritis. One of the most severe complications of primary TKA is periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). To reduce the risk of PJI, some surgeons use antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in primary TKA, but others do not. In other words, the routine use of ALBC in primary TKA is controversial. Objective The purpose of this article is to perform a narrative review of recent literature with the aim of answering the following question: Does ALBC reduce the risk of PJI in primary TKA? Methods A Cochrane Library and PubMed (MEDLINE) search related to the role ALBC in primary TKA was analyzed. The only language searched was English. Scientific meeting abstracts and other sources of evidence were not considered. The main criteria for selection were articles that were focused on the role of ALBC in primary TKA. Results One meta-analysis concluded that the prophylactic application of ALBC is not effective in preventing PJI in primary TKA. Two systematic reviews stated that the ALBC does not reduce the prevalence of PJI in primary TKA, so they consider it an unnecessary expense for health systems. One of these systematic reviews concluded that hospital systems that perform 1000 primary TKA operations per year can save between $155,000 and $310,000 per year if they always use plain cement. A prospective study suggested that in patients with diabetes mellitus who are treated with primary TKA, cement impregnated with cefuroxime is effective in preventing PJI. Conclusions It is logical to recommend the cautious use of ALBC, perhaps only in patients at high risk of infection (immunocompromised, morbid obesity, diabetics, and patients with a history of fracture or infection around the knee).

What's New in Musculoskeletal Infection.

Background:The use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is debated. Some argue that ALBC might only be justified in high-risk patients. This study assessed the effectiveness of ALBC vs. plain bone cement (PBC) in reducing risk of revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in TKA patients considered to have a high risk of infection.Methods:Cohort study of primary TKAs in 11 national or regional arthroplasty registries from 2010 to 2020. The 1-year risk of revision for PJI in TKAs with ALBC vs. PBC among patients with high American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, body mass index (BMI), and/or diabetes was compared. Cumulative percent revision (1 minus Kaplan-Meier) based on 685,818 TKAs and Cox regression analyses (adjusted Hazard Rate Ratios [aHRRs]) were performed for TKAs with ALBC (reference) vs. PBC restricted to the following high-risk subgroups of patients: (1) ASA ≥3 (n = 335,612 vs. 35,997), (2) BMI ≥35 (n = 278,927 vs. 24,737), (3) ASA ≥3 and BMI ≥35 (n = 99,407 vs. 11,407), (4) diabetes (n = 38,341 vs. 21,838), and (5) ASA ≥3, BMI ≥35, and diabetes (n = 3,347 vs. 4,261). Advanced distributed meta-analyses were performed to combine all aggregate data and assess 1-year risk of revision for PJI.Results:Each registry reported a 1-year cumulative percent revision of ≤1.6% for PJI following TKAs both for ALBC and PBC in all high-risk subgroups. Similar 1-year risks of revision for PJI were found in TKAs with ALBC (reference) and PBC among patients with ASA ≥3 (aHRR: 1.09; 95% CI, 0.90-1.31); BMI ≥35 (1.06; 0.54-2.12); ASA ≥3 and BMI ≥35 (1.12; 0.83-1.50); diabetes (0.95; 0.74-1.20); and ASA ≥3, BMI ≥35, and diabetes (1.40; 0.86-2.29).Conclusions and Relevance:Similar 1-year revision risk of PJI was found for TKAs with ALBC vs. PBC in high-risk patients. Confirmation of the efficacy of ALBC in high-risk TKA patients needs to be evaluated in clinical trials.Level of Evidence:Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Despite increased use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in joint arthroplasty over recent decades, current evidence for prophylactic use of ALBC to reduce risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is insufficient. To compare the rate of revision attributed to PJI following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using ALBC vs plain bone cement. This international cohort study used data from 14 national or regional joint arthroplasty registries in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the UK, and the US. The study included primary TKAs for osteoarthritis registered from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020, and followed-up until December 31, 2021. Data analysis was performed from April to September 2023. Primary TKA with ALBC vs plain bone cement. The primary outcome was risk of 1-year revision for PJI. Using a distributed data network analysis method, data were harmonized, and a cumulative revision rate was calculated (1 - Kaplan-Meier), and Cox regression analyses were performed within the 10 registries using both cement types. A meta-analysis was then performed to combine all aggregated data and evaluate the risk of 1-year revision for PJI and all causes. Among 2 168 924 TKAs included, 93% were performed with ALBC. Most TKAs were performed in female patients (59.5%) and patients aged 65 to 74 years (39.9%), fully cemented (92.2%), and in the 2015 to 2020 period (62.5%). All participating registries reported a cumulative 1-year revision rate for PJI of less than 1% following primary TKA with ALBC (range, 0.21%-0.80%) and with plain bone cement (range, 0.23%-0.70%). The meta-analyses based on adjusted Cox regression for 1 917 190 TKAs showed no statistically significant difference at 1 year in risk of revision for PJI (hazard rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.89-1.52) or for all causes (hazard rate ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.89-1.40) among TKAs performed with ALBC vs plain bone cement. In this study, the risk of revision for PJI was similar between ALBC and plain bone cement following primary TKA. Any additional costs of ALBC and its relative value in reducing revision risk should be considered in the context of the overall health care delivery system.

What's New in Musculoskeletal Infection.

The Economics of Antibiotic Cement in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Added Cost with No Reduction in Infection Rates

Update This article was updated on February 6, 2019, because of a previous error. On page 105, in the subsection titled “Outcomes and Design” the sentence that had read “Furthermore, in a retrospective review, Houdek et al. 48 , at a mean follow-up of 8 years, demonstrated improved survivorship of 9,999 metal-backed compared with 1,645 all-polyethylene tibial components, over all age groups and most BMI categories” now reads “Furthermore, in a retrospective review, Houdek et al. 48 , at a mean follow-up of 8 years, demonstrated inferior survivorship of 9,999 metal-backed compared with 1,645 all-polyethylene tibial components, over all age groups and most BMI categories.” An erratum has been published: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Mar 20;101(6):e26.

Background:The use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) and antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) is the accepted practice to reduce the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in primary total knee arthroplasty (pTKA). However, practice varies internationally. This study's primary aim was to compare the risk of PJI revision after pTKA with ALBC + SAP vs. plain bone cement (PBC) + SAP, and the secondary aim was to assess whether the risk of PJI revision varies with the number of SAP doses.Methods:Cohort of 289,926 pTKAs for osteoarthritis from arthroplasty registries in Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, and United States registered from 2010 to 2020. One-year revision for PJI following pTKA with ALBC + SAP vs. PBC + SAP, and single vs. multiple SAP doses was compared. We computed cumulative percent revision (1 minus Kaplan-Meier) using distributed analysis method and adjusted hazard rate ratios (HRRs) using Cox regression analyses within each registry. Advanced distributed meta-analysis was performed to summarize HRRs from all countries.Results:Among all pTKAs, 64.4% were performed with ALBC + SAP. Each registry reported a 1-year cumulative percent revision for PJI of <1.00% for both pTKAs with ALBC + SAP (0.34%-0.80%) and with PBC + SAP (0.54%-0.69%). The distributed meta-analysis showed HRR = 1.21; (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.87) for ALBC + SAP compared with PBC + SAP. Similar risk of PJI revision was observed between pTKAs with ALBC + single vs. multiple doses of SAP: 2 doses (0.95; 95% CI, 0.68-1.33), 3 doses (1.09; 95% CI, 0.64-1.87), and 4 doses (1.23; 95% CI, 0.69-2.21). Comparable results were found for the PBC + SAP group except for higher risk of PJI revision with 4 doses of SAP (2.74; 95% CI, 1.11-6.75).Conclusions:ALBC and PBC entailed similar risk of PJI revision when patients received SAP in pTKA, regardless of number of SAP doses. ALBC or PBC used in combination with SAP in pTKAs, with one single preoperative dose of SAP may be sufficient without compromising the patient safety.Level of evidence:Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The purpose of this study was to analyse the impact on peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) rate and prosthetic survival using antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) versus plain cement during total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A retrospective cohort study was conducted. The main data source was the Catalan Arthroplasty Register (RACat). TKAs with surgery date between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2020 were analysed and followed up until 31 December 2023. The main variable of interest was the type of cement (ALBC vs. plain cement), and several endpoints (septic revision, aseptic revision, and all-cause revision) were considered. The analysed outcomes were revision rates, survival rates and risk factors' hazard ratios (HR). A total of 22,781 TKAs were analysed, 13,125 (57.6%) of them with plain cement and 9656 (42.4%) with ALBC. The septic revision rate was lower in the ALBC group after 3 months of follow-up (0.52% vs. 0.78%, p value = 0.04). Prosthetic survival with respect to the aseptic revision endpoint was also higher for the ALBC group during the whole follow-up period (~158 months). Regarding risk factors for infection, ALBC showed a protective effect, HR: 0.53 (0.44, 0.63), while sex (being male) and the analysed comorbidities increased the risk. ALBC is associated with a reduction in both the septic revision and the aseptic revision rate after TKA, and thus with higher prosthetic survival. Level III, Therapeutic, retrospective.

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). 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). 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). 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.

Antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) have been used to reduce periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates. We investigated the use of ALBC and SAP in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This observational study is based on 2,971,357 primary TKAs reported in 2010-2020 to national/regional joint arthroplasty registries in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA. Aggregate-level data on trends and types of bone cement, antibiotic agents, and doses and duration of SAP used was extracted from participating registries. ALBC was used in 77% of the TKAs with variation ranging from 100% in Norway to 31% in the USA. Palacos R+G was the most common (62%) ALBC type used. The primary antibiotic used in ALBC was gentamicin (94%). Use of ALBC in combination with SAP was common practice (77%). Cefazolin was the most common (32%) SAP agent. The doses and duration of SAP used varied from one single preoperative dosage as standard practice in Bolzano, Italy (98%) to 1-day 4 doses in Norway (83% of the 40,709 TKAs reported to the Norwegian arthroplasty register). The proportion of ALBC usage in primary TKA varies internationally, with gentamicin being the most common antibiotic. ALBC in combination with SAP was common practice, with cefazolin the most common SAP agent. The type of ALBC and type, dose, and duration of SAP varied among participating countries.

Along with a steady rise in the volume of joint prostheses implanted every year worldwide, there has been a rise in revision after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty. Among the main reason for THA revision, infection accounts for 12.0–25.2 %. Nowadays the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALC) with the aim to reduce periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has greatly increased. The use of ALC in primary prosthesis fixation is still debated. So in order to be able to provide a reasonable and scientific answer to this question one should first analyze data from scientific literature. In terms of prophylaxis, it was demonstrated in many investigations that the combined use of systemic antibiotic and ALC in THA was producing the lowest risk of revision due to infection. The release of antibiotic from ALC has a well known kinetics, with a peak release during the first days followed by a long tail of lower release. The choice of adding an Aminoglycoside (Gentamicin) was based on release studies which demonstrated that among antibiot­ics Gentamicin was showing the best elution performances from the bone cement, the most extended spectrum of activity and no negative effects on mechanical performances. As regards possible problems associated with the presence of antibiotic in bone cement the following should be considered: systemic toxicity, hypersensitiv­ity reaction, mechanical hazards, bacterial resistance hazards and cost rising. In conclusion, the use of ALC must be considered as a support strategy in prevention and not the solution of infections; in primary implants, ALC is justified only in high risk patients; it is recommended for revisions; the perfect antibiotic in ALC does not exist; avoid using Vancomycin as first step; ALC is successful only if associated with systemic antibiotics.

Risk Factors and Microbiological Profile of Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infections With Sinus Tract

Diagnosing Seronegative Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasties.

What's New in Hip Replacement.