Hip and Knee Section, Prevention, Local Antimicrobials: Proceedings of International Consensus on Orthopedic Infections

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

Importance

Despite 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.

Objective

To compare the rate of revision attributed to PJI following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using ALBC vs plain bone cement.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This 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.

Exposure

Primary TKA with ALBC vs plain bone cement.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The 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.

Results

Among 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 Relevance

In 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.

Megaprosthesis anti-bacterial coatings: A comprehensive translational review

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) are catastrophic complications for patients with implanted megaprostheses and pose significant challenges in the management of orthopaedic oncology patients. Despite various preventative strategies, with the increasing rate of implanted orthopaedic prostheses, the number of PJIs may be increasing. PJIs are associated with a high rate of amputation. Therefore, novel strategies to combat bacterial colonization and biofilm formation are required. A promising strategy is the utilization of anti-bacterial coatings on megaprosthetic implants. In this translational review, a brief overview of the mechanism of bacterial colonization of implants and biofilm formation will be provided, followed by a discussion and classification of major anti-bacterial coatings currently in use and development. In addition, current in vitro outcomes, clinical significance, economic importance, evolutionary perspectives, and future directions of anti-bacterial coatings will also be discussed. Megaprosthetic anti-bacterial coating strategies will help reduce infection rates following the implantation of megaprostheses and would positively impact sarcoma care. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: This review highlights the clinical challenges and a multitude of potential solutions to combating peri-prosthetic join infections in megaprotheses using anti-bacterial coatings. Reducing infection rates following the implantation of megaprostheses would have a major impact on sarcoma care and major trauma surgeries that require reconstruction of large skeletal defects.

Experiences during Switching from Two-Stage to One-Stage Revision Arthroplasty for Chronic Total Knee Arthroplasty Infection

The objective of this study was to evaluate our preliminary results after changing our surgical strategy from 2-stage revision arthroplasty to 1-stage revision arthroplasty for patients with chronic knee periprosthetic joint infection. We conducted a prospective study of knee arthroplasty patients that had been diagnosed with chronic infection and treated using a 1-stage revision regardless of the traditional criteria applied for indication thereof. We evaluated two main variables: infection control and economic costs. The definitive diagnosis of infection of the revision was determined by using the criteria proposed by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. The costs were calculated as average costs in USD, as described by Srivastava (2019), for 1-stage or 2-stage revisions. Eighteen patients were included in the study, and infection was controlled in 17 patients. The total economic savings for our hospital from these 18 patients amounted to USD 291,152. This clinical success has led to major changes in how our hospital approaches the treatment of chronically infected knee replacements, in addition to substantial economic advantages for the hospital.

Antibiotics- and Heavy Metals-Based Titanium Alloy Surface Modifications for Local Prosthetic Joint Infections

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the second most common cause of arthroplasty failure. Though infrequent, it is one of the most devastating complications since it is associated with great personal cost for the patient and a high economic burden for health systems. Due to the high number of patients that will eventually receive a prosthesis, PJI incidence is increasing exponentially. As these infections are provoked by microorganisms, mainly bacteria, and as such can develop a biofilm, which is in turn resistant to both antibiotics and the immune system, prevention is the ideal approach. However, conventional preventative strategies seem to have reached their limit. Novel prevention strategies fall within two broad categories: (1) antibiotic- and (2) heavy metal-based surface modifications of titanium alloy prostheses. This review examines research on the most relevant titanium alloy surface modifications that use antibiotics to locally prevent primary PJI.

Adjuvant antibiotic-loaded bone cement: Concerns with current use and research to make it work

Antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) is broadly used to treat orthopaedic infections based on the rationale that high-dose local delivery is essential to eradicate biofilm-associated bacteria. However, ALBC formulations are empirically based on drug susceptibility from routine laboratory testing, which is known to have limited clinical relevance for biofilms. There are also dosing concerns with nonstandardized, surgeon-directed, hand-mixed formulations, which have unknown release kinetics. On the basis of our knowledge of in vivo biofilms, pathogen virulence, safety issues with nonstandardized ALBC formulations, and questions about the cost-effectiveness of ALBC, there is a need to evaluate the evidence for this clinical practice. To this end, thought leaders in the field of musculoskeletal infection (MSKI) met on 1 August 2019 to review and debate published and anecdotal information, which highlighted four major concerns about current ALBC use: (a) substantial lack of level 1 evidence to demonstrate efficacy; (b) ALBC formulations become subtherapeutic following early release, which risks induction of antibiotic resistance, and exacerbated infection from microbial colonization of the carrier; (c) the absence of standardized formulation protocols, and Food and Drug Administration-approved high-dose ALBC products to use following resection in MSKI treatment; and (d) absence of a validated assay to determine the minimum biofilm eradication concentration to predict ALBC efficacy against patient specific micro-organisms. Here, we describe these concerns in detail, and propose areas in need of research.

Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infection (PJI): A Clinical Practice Protocol in High-Risk Patients

Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) represents 25% of failed total knee arthroplasties (TKA). The European Knee Associates (EKA) formed a transatlantic panel of experts to perform a literature review examining patient-related risk factors with the objective of producing perioperative recommendations in PJI high-risk patients. Methods: Multiple databases (Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library) and recommendations on TKA PJI prevention measures from the International Consensus Meetings on PJI from the AAOS and AAHKS were reviewed. This represents a Level IV study. Results: Strong evidence was found on poor glycemic control, obesity, malnutrition, and smoking being all associated with increased rates of PJI. In the preoperative period, patient optimization is key: BMI < 35, diet optimization, Hemoglobin A1c < 7.5, Fructosamine < 292 mmol/L, smoking cessation, and MRSA nasal screening all showed strong evidence on reducing PJI risk. Intraoperatively, a weight-based antibiotic prophylaxis, accurate fluid resuscitation, betadine and chlorhexidine dual skin preparation, diluted povidone iodine solution irrigation, tranexamic acid administration, and monofilament barbed triclosan-coated sutures for soft tissues closure all represented effective prevention measures. In the postoperative period, failure to reach normalization of ESR, CRP, D-dimer, and IL-6 six weeks postoperatively suggested early PJI. Conclusion: The current recommendations from this group of experts, based on published evidence, support risk stratification to identify high-risk patients requiring implementation of perioperative measures to reduce postoperative PJI.

How I do it: 1st stage revision TKA

This article covers the key steps and decisions that we make when performing a 1st-stage revision Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) at the Avon Orthopaedic Centre and includes more detailed technique and tips regarding how we make our spacers. The first stage of a two-stage protocol should be done in a stable patient with information about the organism, and with the option of plastic surgery flap coverage if required. It should ideally be performed in the unit that is going to perform the second stage, and the operation note should document the soft-tissues, bone loss and extensor mechanism issues that will influence planning for the second stage. Nothing will make up for a bad debridement, so we focus on this as the key step for infection clearance. Infection clearance is equivalent between mobile and static spacers, but patients generally prefer having the better mobility and function of a mobile spacer. We recommend a mobile spacer, unless there is compromise to ligaments or extensor mechanism, or if bone loss is large. Whichever spacer you use, it should aim to: deliver appropriate antibiotics; allow stability, pain relief and some function and weight-bearing prior to the second stage. Doing a good technical job with the spacer is important because you do not want complications with the spacer to cause harm or necessitate a return to theatre or re-operation sooner than planned. Ideally the second stage should be performed when the surgeon & MDT team deem it appropriate clinically and when the patient is fit and ready for further surgery.

Is the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement associated with a lower risk of revision after primary total hip arthroplasty?

AIMS

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement influenced the risk of revision surgery after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis.

METHODS

The study involved data collected by the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man between 1 September 2005 and 31 August 2017. Cox proportional hazards were used to investigate the association between use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI), with adjustments made for the year of the initial procedure, age at the time of surgery, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, head size, and body mass index (BMI). We looked also at the association between use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and the risk of revision due to aseptic loosening or osteolysis.

RESULTS

The cohort included 418,857 THAs of whom 397,896 had received antibiotic-loaded bone cement and 20,961 plain cement. After adjusting for putative confounding factors, the risk of revision for PJI was lower in those in whom antibiotic-loaded bone cement was used (hazard ration (HR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 0.98). There was also a protective effect on the risk of revision due to aseptic loosening or osteolysis, in the period of > 4.1 years after primary THA, HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45, 0.72.

CONCLUSION

Within the limits of registry analysis, this study showed an association between the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and lower rates of revision due to PJI. The findings support the continued use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in cemented THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):997-1002.

Antibiotics and cement: what I need to know?

We conducted a systematic review about antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) with a focus on clinical evidence about ALBC in general, concerns about ALBC and ALBC cost.

Antibiotic containing bone cement in prevention of hip and knee prosthetic joint infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most serious total joint arthroplasty (TJA) complication despite several aseptic and antiseptic preventive measures. There is no clear evidence or even consensus, whether antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) should be used, in addition to systemic short-term routine antibiotic prophylaxis, to reduce the risk of PJI in primary TJA. We aimed to analyze the efficacy of ALBC for prevention of PJI in patients undergoing primary TJA.

METHODS

We searched systematically for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane library. Two reviewers independently screened potentially eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria and assessed the risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. PJI was prespecified as the primary outcome of interest. The meta-analyses were based on risk ratios using random-effects model per default. For the purpose of sensitivity, the corresponding fixed effects model odds ratios were calculated with the use of the Peto method as well. To evaluate a potential difference in effect sizes using different types (subgroups) of antibiotics used in bone cement, and at different follow-up periods, we performed stratified meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies were eligible for the systematic review and qualitative synthesis, and 9 trials (6507 total joint arthroplasties) were included in this meta-analysis. Overall ALBC significantly reduced the risk of PJI following primary TJAs (RRs, 0.36; 95% CIs, 0.16 to 0.80; P = 0.01) with a moderate degree of inconsistency (I2 = 47%). Based on stratified meta-analyses the use of gentamicin appeared to have a better effect (P = 0.0005) in the total hip arthroplasty. Pooled data of different antibiotics used in knee arthroplasties showed a significant association of cefuroxime (RRs, 0.08; 95% CIs, 0.01 to 0.63; P = 0.02). Further, ALBCs significantly reduced the PJI at one and two years of follow-up (P = 0.03 and P = 0.005 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that ALBCs are effective in reducing the PJI following primary TJA; i.e. between 20 and 84% reduced risk. However, the clear limitations of the available trial evidence highlight the need for joint-specific confirmatory trials, that will need to be designed as cluster-randomized trials of clinics in countries with well-functioning arthroplasty registries.The translational potential of this article: This meta-analysis highlights the prophylactic potential of ALBCs in lowering the risk of infection following primary hip or knee arthroplasties but emphasizes the need for more recent confirmatory trials.

Intraoperative and Postoperative Infection Prevention

Implementation of strategies for prevention of surgical site infection and periprosthetic joint infection is gaining further attention. We provide an overview of the pertinent evidence-based guidelines for infection prevention from the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the second International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection. Future work is needed to ascertain clinical efficacy, optimal combinations, and the cost-effectiveness of certain measures.

The Economics of Antibiotic Cement in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Added Cost with No Reduction in Infection Rates

BACKGROUND

To reduce the substantial clinical and financial burden of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), some surgeons advocate for the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), although its effectiveness continues to be debated in the literature. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the routine use of ALBC is cost-effective in reducing PJI after primary TKA.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of patients undergoing cemented primary TKA at two hospitals within our institution from 2015 to 2017. We compared demographics, comorbidities, costs, and PJI rates between patients receiving ALBC and plain cement. We performed a multivariate regression analysis to determine the independent effect of ALBC on PJI rate. We calculated readmission costs for PJI and reduction in PJI needed to justify the added cost of ALBC.

RESULTS

Of 2511 patients, 1077 underwent TKA with ALBC (43%), with no difference in PJI rates (0.56% vs 0.14%, P = .0662) or complications (1.2% vs 1.6%, P = .3968) but higher cement costs ($416 vs $117, P < .0001) and overall procedure costs ($6445 vs $5.968, P < .0001). ALBC had no effect on infection rate (P = .0894). Patients readmitted with PJI had higher overall 90-day episode-of-care claims costs ($49,341 vs $19,032, P < .001). To justify additional costs, ALBC would need to prevent infection in one of every 101 patients.

CONCLUSION

Routine use of ALBC in primary TKA is not cost-effective, adding $299 to the cost of episode of care without a reduction in PJI rate. Further study is needed to determine whether select use of ALBC would be justified in high-risk patients.