Does Adding Antibiotics to Cement Reduce the Need for Early Revision in Total Knee Arthroplasty?
- 715 Downloads
There is considerable debate about whether antibiotic-loaded bone cement should be used for fixation of TKAs. While antibiotics offer the theoretical benefit of lowering early revision due to infection, they may weaken the cement and thus increase the likelihood of aseptic loosening, perhaps resulting in a higher revision rate.
We (1) compared the frequency of early knee revision arthroplasty in patients treated with antibiotic-loaded or non-antibiotic-loaded cement for initial fixation, (2) determined effects of age, sex, comorbidities, and surgeons’ antibiotic-loaded cement usage patterns on revision rate, and (3) compared causes of revision (aseptic or septic) between groups.
Our study sample was taken from the Canadian Joint Replacement Registry and Canada’s Hospital Morbidity Database and included cemented TKAs performed between April 1, 2003, and March 31, 2008, including 20,016 TKAs inserted with non-antibiotic-loaded cement and 16,665 inserted with antibiotic-loaded cement. Chi-square test was used to compare the frequency of early revisions between groups. Cox regression modeling was used to determine whether revision rate would change by age, sex, comorbidities, or use of antibiotic-loaded cement. Similar Cox regression modeling was used to compare cause of revision between groups.
Two-year revision rates were similar between the groups treated with non-antibiotic-loaded cement and antibiotic-loaded cement (1.40% versus 1.51%, p = 0.41). When controlling for age, sex, comorbidities, diabetes, and surgeons’ antibiotic-loaded cement usage patterns, the revision risk likewise was similar between groups. Revision rates for infection were similar between groups; however, there were more revisions for aseptic loosening in the group treated with non-antibiotic-loaded cement (p = 0.02).
The use of antibiotic-loaded cement in TKAs performed for osteoarthritis has no clinically significant effect on reducing revision within 2 years in patients who received perioperative antibiotics. Longer followup and confirmation of these findings with other national registries are warranted.
Level of Evidence
Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
The authors thank the orthopaedic surgeons, nurses, and secretaries who have contributed to the CJRR.
- 1.Australian Orthopaedic Association. National Joint Replacement Registry Report 2006. Available at: https://aoanjrr.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/documents/10180/75132/Annual%20Report%202006?version=1.1&t=1349406762263. Accessed March 28, 2013.
- 6.Department of Orthopedics, Lund University Hospital. The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register Annual Report 2010. Available at: http://www.knee.nko.se/english/online/uploadedFiles/114_SKAR2010_Eng1.0.pdf. Accessed March 28, 2013.
- 7.Dunne N, Hill J, McAfee P, Todd K, Kirkpatrick R, Tunney M, Patrick S. In vitro study of the efficacy of acrylic bone cement loaded with supplementary amounts of gentamicin: effect on mechanical properties, antibiotic release, and biofilm formation. Acta Orthop. 2007;78:774–785.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Engesaeter LB, Espehaug B, Lie SA, Furnes O, Havelin LI. Does cement increase the risk of infection in primary total hip arthroplasty? Revision rates in 56,275 cemented and uncemented primary THAs followed for 0–16 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2006;77:351–358.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Engesaeter LB, Lie SA, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Vollset SE, Havelin LI. Antibiotic prophylaxis in total hip arthroplasty: effects of antibiotic prophylaxis systemically and in bone cement on the revision rate of 22,170 primary hip replacements followed 0–14 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74:644–651.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Havelin LI, Espehaug B, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB. The effect of the type of cement on early revision of Charnley total hip prostheses: a review of eight thousand five hundred and seventy-nine primary arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77:1543–1550.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.National Joint Registry for England and Wales. 7th Annual Report 2010. Available at: http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/portals/0/njr 7th annual report 2010.pdf. Accessed March 28, 2013.