These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Antibiotic-impregnated bone cement for preventing infection in patients receiving primary total hip and knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis.
    Author: Zhang J, Zhang XY, Jiang FL, Wu YP, Yang BB, Liu ZY, Liu D.
    Journal: Medicine (Baltimore); 2019 Dec; 98(49):e18068. PubMed ID: 31804314.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Surgical-site infections after primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) are a significant issue. Antibiotic-impregnated bone cement (AIBC) has been widely used for the treatment of infected joints, but routine use of AIBC in primary TJA remains controversial. In this systematic review, we evaluated the efficacy of AIBC in reducing surgical-site infections after primary TJA. METHODS: We systematically searched Pubmed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, CMB, CNKI, and WanFang Data for studies (published until June 1, 2019) evaluating AIBC use in reducing infection rates. Two reviewers independently screened the literature according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software. The registration number is CRD42017078341 in PROSPERO. RESULTS: In total, 10 studies were included, resulting in a sample size of 13,909 arthroplasty cases. The overall pooled data demonstrated that, compared with systemic antibiotics, AIBC was more effective in decreasing deep infection rates (odds ratio [OR] = 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.14-0.89, P = .030), although there were higher superficial infection rates with AIBC (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.11-2.11, P = .010). Compared to systemic antibiotics alone, AIBC with systemic antibiotics significantly decreased deep infection rates (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.41-0.75, P = .0001) but there was no difference in superficial infection rates (OR = 1.43, 95% CI = 0.81-2.54, P = .220). In the subgroup analysis, both randomized controlled trials and cohort studies had reduced deep infection rates after primary TJA (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.37-0.99, P = .050 and OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.34-0.70, P = .0001, respectively). AIBC decreased deep infection rates in both total hip and knee arthroplasty (OR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.12-0.52, P = .0002 and OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.45-0.87, P = .005, respectively). Deep infection rates were significantly decreased by AIBC with gentamicin (OR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.20-0.49, P < .00001) but unaffected by AIBC with cefuroxime (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.10-1.20, P = .100). Deep infection rates in the AIBC and control groups were similar when laminar airflow was applied to the operating room (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.60-1.35, P = .620); however, without laminar airflow, the efficacy of AIBC in decreasing deep infection rates was significantly higher than that of control group (OR = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.08-0.59, P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: AIBC may significantly decrease deep infection rates after primary total hip and knee arthroplasty, with or without systemic antibiotics.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]