Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty With or Without Antibiotic Bone Cement-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty With or Without Antibiotic Bone Cement

Published:2024-05-23 Issue:5 Volume:7 Page:e2412898
ISSN:2574-3805
Container-title:JAMA Network Open
language:en
Short-container-title:JAMA Netw Open

Author:

Leta Tesfaye H.¹²³⁴,Lie Stein Atle¹⁵,Fenstad Anne Marie¹,Lygre Stein Håkon L.¹⁶,Lindberg-Larsen Martin⁷⁸,Pedersen Alma B.⁷⁹,W-Dahl Annette¹⁰¹¹,Rolfson Ola¹⁰¹²,Bülow Erik¹²¹³,van Steenbergen Liza N.¹⁴,Nelissen Rob G. H. H.¹⁴¹⁵,Harries Dylan¹⁶,de Steiger Richard¹⁷,Lutro Olav¹⁸,Mäkelä Keijo¹⁹²⁰,Venäläinen Mikko S.²¹,Willis Jinny²²,Wyatt Michael²²,Frampton Chris²²,Grimberg Alexander²³,Steinbrück Arnd²³,Wu Yinan²³,Armaroli Cristiana²⁴,Gentilini Maria Adalgisa²⁴,Picus Roberto²⁵,Bonetti Mirko²⁵,Dragosloveanu Serban²⁶²⁷²⁸,Vorovenci Andreea E.²⁶²⁹,Dragomirescu Dan²⁶²⁹,Dale Håvard¹³⁰,Brand Christian³¹³²,Christen Bernhard³¹³³,Shapiro Joanne³⁴³⁵,Wilkinson J. Mark³⁴³⁶,Armstrong Richard³⁴³⁵,Wooster Kate³⁴³⁵,Hallan Geir¹³⁰,Gjertsen Jan-Erik¹³⁰,Chang Richard N.⁴,Prentice Heather A.⁴,Sedrakyan Art³,Paxton Elizabeth W.⁴,Furnes Ove¹³⁰

Affiliation:

1. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway

2. Faculty of Health Science, VID Specialized University, Oslo, Norway

3. Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York

4. Medical Device Surveillance and Assessment, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, California

5. Center for Translational Oral Research, Department of Dentistry, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

6. Department of Occupational Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway

7. The Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register, Odense, Denmark

8. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

9. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital and Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

10. The Swedish Arthroplasty Register, Gothenburg, Sweden

11. Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Orthopedics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

12. Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

13. Centre of Registers Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden

14. The Dutch Arthroplasty Register, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands

15. Department Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands

16. South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia

17. The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, Adelaide, Australia

18. Department of Medicine, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway

19. The Finnish Arthroplasty Register, Helsinki, Finland

20. Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland

21. Department of Medical Physics, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland

22. The New Zealand Joint Registry, Christchurch, New Zealand

23. German Arthroplasty Registry, Berlin, Germany

24. Arthroplasty Registry of the Autonomous Province of Trento, Clinical Epidemiology Service, Provincial Agency for Health Services of Trento, Trento, Italy

25. Arthroplasty Register of Autonomous Province of Bolzano, Observatory of Health, Health Department AP of Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy

26. Romanian Arthroplasty Registry, Bucharest, Romania

27. University of Medicine and Pharmacy–Carol Davila, Bucharest, Romania

28. Foisor Orthopaedic Hospital, Bucharest, Romania

29. Economic Cybernetics and Statistics Doctoral School, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania

30. Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

31. Swiss National Hip and Knee Joint Registry, Bern, Switzerland

32. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, SwissRDL, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

33. Articon, Bern, Switzerland

34. The National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, The Isle of Man and Guernsey, London, United Kingdom

35. NEC Software Solutions, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom

36. Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom

Abstract

ImportanceDespite 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.ObjectiveTo compare the rate of revision attributed to PJI following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using ALBC vs plain bone cement.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis 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.ExposurePrimary TKA with ALBC vs plain bone cement.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe 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.ResultsAmong 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.Conclusions and RelevanceIn 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.

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

Link

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/articlepdf/2819041/leta_2024_oi_240450_1715725940.97332.pdf

Reference71 articles.

1. Projected increase in total knee arthroplasty in the United States—an alternative projection model.;Inacio;Osteoarthritis Cartilage,2017

2. Current trends and projections in the utilisation rates of hip and knee replacement in New Zealand from 2001 to 2026.;Hooper;N Z Med J,2014

3. Future projections of total hip and knee arthroplasty in the UK: results from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink.;Culliford;Osteoarthritis Cartilage,2015

4. The projected burden of primary total knee and hip replacement for osteoarthritis in Australia to the year 2030.;Ackerman;BMC Musculoskelet Disord,2019

5. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030.;Kurtz;J Bone Joint Surg Am,2007

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Antibiotic‐loaded bone cement is associated with a reduction of the risk of revision of total knee arthroplasty: Analysis of the Catalan Arthroplasty Register;Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy;2024-07-21