The effect of antibiotic-loaded bone cement on risk of revision following hip and knee arthroplasty

Evidence for cemented TKA and THA based on a comparison of international register data

BACKGROUND

Hip and knee implants can either be fixed without cement, press-fit, or with bone cement. Real-world data from arthroplasty registers, as well as studies provide a broad database for the discussion of cemented versus uncemented arthroplasty procedures.

OBJECTIVE

What does current evidence from international arthroplasty registries and meta-analyses recommend regarding cemented or cementless fixation of hip and knee implants?

METHODS

A recommendation is generated by means of direct data comparison from the arthroplasty registries of eight countries (USA, Germany, Australia, UK, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Netherlands), the comparison of 22 review studies and meta-analyses based on registry data, as well as an evaluation of recommendations of healthcare systems from different nations. For this purpose, reviews and meta-analyses were selected where the results were statistically significant, as were the annual reports of the arthroplasty registries that were current at the time of writing.

RESULTS

For knee arthroplasties, long survival time as well as lower risk of revision can be achieved with the support of cemented fixation with antibiotic-loaded bone cement. In patients aged 70 years and older, cemented fixation of hip stem implants significantly reduces risk of intraoperative or postoperative periprosthetic fracture (quadruple). This applies both to elective total hip arthroplasties and to hemiarthroplasty after femoral neck fractures. Antibiotic-loaded bone cement significantly (p = 0.041) reduces the risk of periprosthetic infection, especially in patients with femoral neck fractures.

CONCLUSION

Total knee replacement with antibiotic-loaded bone cement is well established internationally and is evidence-based. Registry data and meta-analyses recommend cemented fixation of the hip stem in older patients. In Germany, USA and Australia these evidence-based recommendations still must be transferred to daily practice.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of antibiotic-loaded bone cement for prevention of deep surgical site infections following primary total joint replacement

BACKGROUND

The use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) as a mean for preventing deep surgical site infections (SSI) after total joint replacement is controversial. Therefore, we have conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the prophylactic effect of ALBC for SSI prevention in patients undergoing arthroplasty. This study was conducted to revise treatment guidelines for MRSA infections in Japan.

METHODS

PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane library were searched for relevant articles comparing preventive effect of ALBC for patients undergoing primary total joint arthroplasty by August 2022. Primary outcome was the incidence of deep SSI. Subgroup analyses by type of surgery (total hip (THA) or knee (TKA) arthroplasty) and by causative pathogen (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)) were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 3379 studies identified for screening, six studies involving 5745 patients were included. The use of ALBC significantly reduced the incidence of deep SSI in overall patients (risk ratio [RR] 0.60, 95% confidential interval [CI] 0.39-0.92), but the evidence level was very low. There was no significant preventive effect for ALBC compared with non-ALBC in both THA and TKA (THA, RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.23-1.16; TKA, RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.38-1.06), and for preventing MRSA-SSI (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.03-2.41).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the overall preventive effect of ALBC was significant, the evidence level was very low. Thus, the routine use of ALBC as a mean to prevent SSI in arthroplasty may not be suggested.

[Register data on cemented arthroplasty : A proof for cementless fixation?]

BACKGROUND

Hip and knee implants can be either fixated without cement, press-fit, or with bone cement. Real-world data from arthroplasty registers, as well as studies, provide a broad database for the discussion of cemented versus uncemented arthroplasty procedures.

OBJECTIVES

What is the recommendation for cemented or cementless anchorage of hip and knee implants based on the current evidence from international arthroplasty registries and meta-analyses?

METHODS

A recommendation is generated by means of a direct comparison of data from the arthroplasty registries of eight different countries (USA, Germany, Australia, UK, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, and The Netherlands), the comparison of 22 review studies and meta-analyses based on registry data, as well as the evaluation of the recommendation of healthcare systems of different nations. For this purpose, reviews and meta-analyses whose results were statistically significant were selected, as were the annual reports of the arthroplasty registries that were current at the time of writing.

RESULTS

For knee endoprostheses, a long survival time, as well as a lower risk of revision can be achieved with the help of cemented anchorage with antibiotic-laden bone cement. In patients aged 70 years and older, cemented anchorage of the hip stem implant significantly reduces the risk of intraoperative or postoperative periprosthetic fracture (times four), this applies both to elective total hip arthroplasties (TEPs) and to hemiarthroplasty after femoral neck fractures. Antibiotic-loaded bone cement significantly (p = 0.041) reduces the risk of periprosthetic infection, especially in patients with femoral neck fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

Total knee replacement with antibiotic-loaded bone cement is well established in Germany and evidence based. Registry data and meta-analyses recommend cemented fixation of the hip stem in older patients-in Germany the evidence-based recommendations must still be transferred to daily practice.

Case Report: Hip arthroplasty after fracture-related joint infection caused by extensively drug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae

This case-report focuses on a 23-year-old soldier suffering from a fracture-related hip joint infection (FRI) due to extensively drug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae and S. epidermidis. The patient underwent multiple septic revision surgeries including the removal of remaining shrapnel accompanied by last-resort antimicrobial therapy with cefiderocol and colistin. Additionally, the surgeries included repeated tissue sampling for microbiological and histopathological analysis. An antibiotic-loaded cemented filler containing cefiderocol was used to improve local antimicrobial therapy. The biopsies prior to and during hip replacement surgery confirmed successful microbe eradication. Hip arthroplasty restored hip joint function and significantly improved patient's quality of life. The utilization of a trabecular metal shell and a meta-diaphyseally anchored cementless hip stem ensured secure implant fixation and early patient mobilisation. An adjusted biofilm active oral antimicrobial therapy after arthroplasty intervention was continued to prevent early periprosthetic joint infection. This case emphasizes the difficulties of managing FRI and multidrug-resistant pathogens. It contributes valuable insight into navigating complex orthopedic cases while ensuring successful hip arthroplasty outcomes. In conclusion, early interdisciplinary collaboration, appropriate antimicrobial therapy along with tailored surgical interventions are crucial for managing such complex cases successfully.

Risk for re-revision and type of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in hip or knee arthroplasty revisions: report of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

High-dose dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) may reduce the risk of revision after total hip and knee replacements. The aim of our study therefore was to determine the risk of re-revision following first time aseptic hip or knee revision using single versus dual ALBC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register treated from 2007 to 2018 with first time cemented aseptic hip (n = 2,529) or knee revisions (n = 7,124) were incorporated into 2 datasets. The primary endpoint of this observational cohort study was subsequent all-cause re-revision. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard and competing risk was analyzed for both groups.

RESULTS

There was no difference in re-revision rate (any reason) with single versus dual ALBC (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.35 for hip and 0.93, CI 0.80-1.07 for knee revisions). The 10-year crude cumulative re-revision rate also showed no differences for single versus dual ALBC use. The crude cumulative 7-year THA re-revision and 9-year TKA re-revision rates did not show any difference in implant survival for common cement types used.

CONCLUSION

We could not confirm the potential benefit of using dual ALBC compared with single ALBC for aseptic hip and knee revisions.

Routine use of antibiotic-laden bone cement in total knee arthroplasty is a cost-effective practice in the single-payer healthcare system

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of antibiotic-laden bone cement (ALBC) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) from the perspective of a single-payer healthcare system.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis (CUA) was performed over a 2-year time horizon comparing primary TKA with either ALBC or regular bone cement (RBC) from the perspective of the single-payer Canadian healthcare system. All costs were in 2020 Canadian dollars. Health utilities were in the form of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Model inputs for cost, utilities and probabilities were derived from the literature as well as regional and national databases. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Primary TKA with ALBC was found to be more cost-effective compared to primary TKA with RBC with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -3,637.79 CAD/QALY. The use of routine ALBC remained cost-effective even with cost increases of up to 50% per bag of ALBC. TKA with ALBC was no longer cost-effective if the rate of PJI following this practice increased 52%, or the rate of PJI following the use of RBC decreased 27%.

CONCLUSIONS

The routine use of ALBC in TKA is a cost-effective practice in the single-payer Canadian healthcare system. This remains to be the case even with a 50% increase in the cost of ALBC. Policy makers and hospital administrators of single-payer healthcare systems can leverage this model to inform their local funding policies. Future prospective reviews and randomized controlled trials from the perspective of various healthcare models can further shed light on this issue.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

The unquantifiable benefits of modern arthroplasty networks

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):590–592.

Mortality and re-revision following single-stage and two-stage revision surgery for the management of infected primary hip arthroplasty in England and Wales

We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary arthroplasty revised with single-stage or two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HRs) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. In total, 535 primary hip arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,525 person-years) and 1,605 with two-stage procedure (5,885 person-years). All-cause re-revision was higher following single-stage revision, especially in the first three months (HR at 3 months = 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.43), p = 0.009). The risks were comparable thereafter. Re-revision for PJI was higher in the first three postoperative months for single-stage revision and waned with time (HR at 3 months = 1.81 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.68), p = 0.003; HR at 6 months = 1.25 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.21), p = 0.441; HR at 12 months = 0.94 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.63), p = 0.819). Patients initially managed with a single-stage revision received fewer revision operations (mean 1.3 (SD 0.7) vs 2.2 (SD 0.6), p < 0.001). Mortality rates were comparable between these two procedures (29/10,000 person-years vs 33/10,000). The risk of unplanned re-revision was lower following two-stage revision, but only in the early postoperative period. The lower overall number of revision procedures associated with a single-stage revision strategy and the equivalent mortality rates to two-stage revision are reassuring. With appropriate counselling, single-stage revision is a viable option for the treatment of hip PJI.

Antimicrobials in polymethylmethacrylate: from prevention to prosthetic joint infection treatment: basic principles and risk of resistance

BACKGROUND

Excellent revisions about antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) have been recently published. In the present article, we review the principles and limitations of local antibiotic delivery in the context of recent advances in the pathogenesis of prosthetic joint infections (PJI), with particular attention paid to the potential association between ALBC and antimicrobial resistance.

MAIN BODY

Recalcitrance of PJI is related to the ability of pathogens to adapt to particular environments present in bone tissue and protect themselves from host immunity in different ways. Accordingly, delivery of high local antimicrobial concentrations using ALBC is needed. Most relevant clinical data showing the efficacy of ALBC for PJI prophylaxis and treatment are reviewed, and we dissected the limitations on the basis of the recent findings from animal models and suggested that aminoglycosides, in particular, could not be the best option. One of the major concerns associated with ALBC is the emergence of resistance because of theoretical prolonged exposure to low antibiotic concentrations. We summarize the mechanisms for the selection of resistant microorganisms, and we critically reviewed the evidence from animal models and clinical data from observational and registry studies and concluded that there is no evidence to support this association.

CONCLUSION

While waiting for better evidence from well-designed clinical trials, ALBC shows a beneficial effect as a prophylaxis in arthroplasty, and to avoid the colonization of spacers used for two-stage revision in patients with PJI. Experimental models and clinical evidence suggest the need to achieve high local antimicrobial concentrations to obtain the highest prophylactic and therapeutic effect. The current evidence does not support the risk of increasing resistance with use of ALBC. In the future, it is necessary to evaluate new carriers and different antimicrobials to improve clinical outcomes.

Femoral Stem Cementation in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

➢

Femoral stem cementation has undergone considerable investigation since bone cement was first used in arthroplasty, leading to the evolution of modern femoral stem cementation techniques.

➢

Although there is a worldwide trend toward the use of cementless components, cemented femoral stems have shown superiority in some studies and have clear indications in specific populations.

➢

There is a large evidence base regarding cement properties, preparation, and application techniques that underlie current beliefs and practice, but considerable controversy still exists.

➢

Although the cementing process adds technical complexity to total hip arthroplasty, growing evidence supports its use in certain cohorts. As such, it is critical that orthopaedic surgeons and investigators have a thorough understanding of the fundamentals and evidence underlying modern cementation techniques.

Antibiotic-free antimicrobial poly (methyl methacrylate) bone cements: A state-of-the-art review

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most serious complication following total joint arthroplasty, this being because it is associated with, among other things, high morbidity and low quality of life, is difficult to prevent, and is very challenging to treat/manage. The many shortcomings of antibiotic-loaded poly (methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) bone cement (ALBC) as an agent for preventing and treating/ managing PJI are well-known. One is that microorganisms responsible for most PJI cases, such as methicillin-resistant S. aureus, have developed or are developing resistance to gentamicin sulfate, which is the antibiotic in the vast majority of approved ALBC brands. This has led to many research efforts to develop cements that do not contain gentamicin (or, for that matter, any antibiotic) but demonstrate excellent antimicrobial efficacy. There is a sizeable body of literature on these so-called “antibiotic-free antimicrobial” PMMA bone cements (AFAMBCs). The present work is a comprehensive and critical review of this body. In addition to summaries of key trends in results of characterization studies of AFAMBCs, the attractive features and shortcomings of the literature are highlighted. Shortcomings provide motivation for future work, with some ideas being formulation of a new generation of AFAMBCs by, example, adding a nanostructured material and/or an extract from a natural product to the powder and/or liquid of the basis cement, respectively.

Complex Reconstruction for Acetabular Pathologic Fracture in Unusual Chondroblastoma With Aneurysmal Bone Cyst

Treating bone loss with complex arthroplasty poses a significant challenge for the arthroplasty surgeon. When considering a reconstructive case after pathologic fracture and oncologic excision, a multidisciplinary approach with reliance on arthroplasty principles is critical. An 18-year-old patient presented with a complex acetabular pathologic fracture through a chondroblastoma with a secondary aneurysmal bone cyst. An outside institution performed a biopsy and placed a hip-spanning external fixator. Multidisciplinary planning led to tumor excision, complex acetabular arthroplasty reconstruction including structural bone grafting, and internal fixation. At the third year of follow-up, there was no evidence of mechanical loosening of the hip arthroplasty, reoperation, or tumor recurrence. The structural graft was completely osseointegrated, confirmed by a computed tomography scan obtained at 2 years postoperatively. This report demonstrates an unusual location of chondroblastoma, presenting with acetabular fracture definitively treated with complex multidisciplinary reconstruction leading to an excellent outcome in a young patient.

The lifetime risk of revision following total knee arthroplasty : a New Zealand Joint Registry study

AIMS

The success of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is usually measured using functional outcome scores and revision-free survivorship. However, reporting the lifetime risk of revision may be more meaningful to patients when gauging risks, especially in younger patients. We aimed to assess the lifetime risk of revision for patients in different age categories at the time of undergoing primary TKA.

METHODS

The New Zealand Joint Registry database was used to obtain revision rates, mortality, and the indications for revision for all primary TKAs performed during an 18-year period between January 1999 and December 2016. Patients were stratified into age groups at the time of the initial TKA, and the lifetime risk of revision was calculated according to age, sex, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. The most common indications for revision were also analyzed for each age group.

RESULTS

The overall ten-year survival rate was 95.6%. This was lowest in the youngest age group (between 46 and 50 years) and increased sequentially with increasing age. The lifetime risk of requiring revision was 22.4% in those aged between 46 and 50 years at the time of the initial surgery, and decreased linearly with increasing age to 1.15% in those aged between 90 and 95 years at the time of surgery. Higher ASA grades were associated with increased lifetime risk of revision in all age groups. The three commonest indications for revision were aseptic loosening, infection, and unexplained pain. Young males, aged between 46 and 50 years, had the highest lifetime risk of revision (25.2%).

CONCLUSION

Lifetime risk of revision may be a more meaningful measure of outcome than implant survival at defined time periods when counselling patients prior to TKA. This study highlights the considerably higher lifetime risk of revision surgery for all indications, including infection, in younger male patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):235-241.

Prophylactic Antibiofilm Activity of Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cements against Gram-Negative Bacteria

Gram-negative bacilli can be responsible for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) even if staphylococci are the main involved pathogens. Gram-negative PJIs (GN-PJI) are considered difficult-to-treat infections due to the increase in antimicrobial resistance and biofilm formation. To minimize the risk of infection in cases of arthroplasties with cemented prosthesis, bone cement can be loaded with antibiotics, especially gentamicin. In this study, we aimed to compare the prophylactic antibiofilm activity of ready-to-use antibiotic-loaded bone cements (ALBC), already commercialized or new prototypes. We compared ALBCs containing gentamicin alone, gentamicin plus vancomycin, gentamicin plus clindamycin, gentamicin plus Fosfomycin, and fosfomycin alone, to plain cement (no antibiotic); these comparisons were conducted to investigate the biofilm formation of three strains of Escherichia coli, three strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and two strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae, with or without specific resistance to gentamicin or fosfomycin. We reported that ALBC containing gentamicin and clindamycin (COPAL G+C) seems to be the most interesting ALBC of our tested panel for the prevention of biofilm formation by gentamicin-susceptible strains, even if clindamycin is not effective against Gram-negative bacteria. However, gentamicin-resistant strains are still a problem, and further studies are needed to identify an antibiotic to associate with gentamicin for an efficient dual ALBC against Gram-negative bacteria.

Cement Loaded With High-Dose Gentamicin and Clindamycin Reduces the Risk of Subsequent Infection After One-Stage Hip or Knee Arthroplasty Exchange for Periprosthetic Infection: A Preliminary Study

BACKGROUND

The use of antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement for treating periprosthetic joint infections remains controversial. We hypothesized that the raw rate of surgical site infection (SSI) is lower after using cement loaded with high-dose gentamicin and clindamycin than after using cement loaded with standard-dose gentamicin for implant fixation during 1-stage hip and knee revision arthroplasty for infection.

METHODS

One hundred seventy-one continuous patients operated by 2 experienced surgeons during a 2-year period were included in the study. All patients were followed for 24 months. The primary endpoint was the raw rate of SSI after 2 years of follow-up time.

RESULTS

The raw rate of SSI after 2 years of follow-up time was significantly lower in the study group (13%) than in the control group (26%) (P = .03) with an odds ratio of 0.42 (P = .03). These SSIs were new infections rather than a recurrence/persistence of the initial infection.

CONCLUSION

The cement used in the study group significantly reduced the risk of SSI relative to the cement used in the control group. Routine use of this high-dose dual antibiotic-loaded cement can be considered during 1-stage knee or hip revision arthroplasty for infection.

A Comparison of Risks and Benefits Regarding Hip Arthroplasty Fixation

Since the field-changing invention of noncemented hip arthroplasty fixation in the 1980s, noncemented fixation has been progressively replacing cemented fixation. However, analyses of fixation frequencies reveal new patterns in cement versus noncemented preferences. Although cementation is again gaining ground in the United States, noncemented models remain the dominant fixation mode, seen in more than 90% of all hip arthroplasties. This stark preference is likely driven by concerns regarding implant durability and patient safety. Although advances in surgical techniques, intensive perioperative care, and improved instrument have evolved in both methods, data from large arthroplasty registries reveal shifting risks in contemporary hip arthroplasty, calling the use of noncemented fixation into question. Varying risk profiles regarding sex, age, or health comorbidities and morphological and functional differences necessitate personalized risk assessments. Furthermore, certain patient populations, based on the literature and data from large registries, have superior outcomes from cemented hip arthroplasty techniques. Therefore, we wanted to critically evaluate the method of arthroplasty fixation in primary hip arthroplasties for unique patient populations.

Effect of tourniquet use on the risk of revision in total knee replacement surgery: an analysis of the National Joint Registry Data Set

OBJECTIVE

Tourniquet use in total knee replacement (TKR) is believed to improve the bone-cement interface by reducing bleeding, potentially prolonging implant survival. This study aimed to compare the risk of revision for primary cemented TKR performed with or without a tourniquet.

DESIGN

We analysed data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for all primary cemented TKRs performed in England and Wales between April 2003 and December 2003. Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression were used to assess the influence of tourniquet use, age at time of surgery, sex and American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) classification on risk of revision for all-causes.

RESULTS

Data were available for 16 974 cases of primary cemented TKR, of which 16 132 had surgery with a tourniquet and 842 had surgery without a tourniquet. At 10 years, 3.8% had undergone revision (95% CI 2.6% to 5.5%) in the no-tourniquet group and 3.1% in the tourniquet group (95% CI 2.8% to 3.4%). After adjusting for age at primary surgery, gender and primary ASA score, the HR for all-cause revision for cemented TKR without a tourniquet was 0.82 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.18).

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find evidence that using a tourniquet for primary cemented TKR offers a clinically important or statistically significant reduction in the risk of all-cause revision up to 13 years after surgery. Surgeons should consider this evidence when deciding whether to use a tourniquet for cemented TKR.