Skip to main content

Does Adding Antibiotics to Cement Reduce the Need for Early Revision in Total Knee Arthroplasty?



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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1


  1. 1.

    Australian Orthopaedic Association. National Joint Replacement Registry Report 2006. Available at: Accessed March 28, 2013.

  2. 2.

    Bohm ER, Dunbar MJ, Frood JJ, Johnson TM, Morris KA. Rehospitalizations, early revisions, infections, and hospital resource use in the first year after hip and knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty. 2011;27:232–237.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bourne RB. Prophylactic use of antibiotic bone cement: an emerging standard—in the affirmative. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:69–72.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Canadian Institute for Health Information. Privacy policy on the collection, use, disclosure and retention of personal health information and de-identified data. Available at: Accessed March 28, 2013.

  5. 5.

    Chiu FY, Chen CM, Lin CF, Lo WH. Cefuroxime-impregnated cement in primary total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized study of three hundred and forty knees. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:759–762.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Department of Orthopedics, Lund University Hospital. The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register Annual Report 2010. Available at: Accessed March 28, 2013.

  7. 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Gandhi R, Razak F, Pathy R, Davey JR, Syed K, Mahomed NN. Antibiotic bone cement and the incidence of deep infection after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:1015–1018.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Hanssen AD. Prophylactic use of antibiotic bone cement: an emerging standard—in opposition. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:73–77.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Jamsen E, Huhtala H, Puolakka T, Moilanen T. Risk factors for infection after knee arthroplasty: a register-based analysis of 43,149 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:38–47.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Jiranek WA, Hanssen AD, Greenwald AS. Antibiotic-loaded bone cement for infection prophylaxis in total joint replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:2487–2500.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Lai K, Bohm ER, Burnell C, Hedden DR. Presence of medical comorbidities in patients with infected primary hip or knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:651–656.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Namba RS, Chen Y, Paxton EW, Slipchenko T, Fithian DC. Outcomes of routine use of antibiotic-loaded cement in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:44–47.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    National Joint Registry for England and Wales. 7th Annual Report 2010. Available at: 7th annual report 2010.pdf. Accessed March 28, 2013.

  18. 18.

    Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC, Saunders LD, Beck CA, Feasby TE, Ghali WA. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43:1130–1139.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Saleh K, Olson M, Resig S, Bershadsky B, Kuskowski M, Gioe T, Robinson H, Schmidt R, McElfresh E. Predictors of wound infection in hip and knee joint replacement: results from a 20 year surveillance program. J Orthop Res. 2002;20:506–515.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    van de Belt H, Neut D, Schenk W, van Horn JR, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ. Gentamicin release from polymethylmethacrylate bone cements and Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:625–629.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors thank the orthopaedic surgeons, nurses, and secretaries who have contributed to the CJRR.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Dunbar MD, FRCSC, PhD.

Additional information

The institution of one or more of the authors (EB, MD) has received, during the study period, funding from Stryker Orthopaedics (Mahwah, NJ, USA), Zimmer, Inc (Warsaw, IN, USA), DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc (Warsaw, IN, USA), and Smith & Nephew, Inc (Memphis, TN, USA). One of the authors certifies that he (MD), or a member of his or her immediate family, has received or may receive payments or benefits, during the study period, an amount of USD 100,001 to USD 1,000,000 from Stryker. One or more authors (NZ, JG, NG, CL, TA) is an employee of the Canadian Institute of Health Information.

All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Each author certifies that his or her institution approved or waived approval for the human protocol for this investigation and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research.

Data were obtained from the national Canadian Joint Replacement Registry and analysis was performed at Canadian Institute for Health Information (Toronto and Ottawa, Ontario, Canada), Concordia Joint Replacement Group (Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada), and Dalhousie University (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada).

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

About this article

Cite this article

Bohm, E., Zhu, N., Gu, J. et al. Does Adding Antibiotics to Cement Reduce the Need for Early Revision in Total Knee Arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472, 162–168 (2014).

Download citation


  • Aseptic Loosening
  • Revision Rate
  • Cement Type
  • Palacos
  • Early Revision