高风险患者膝关节置换术后抗生素骨水泥与感染风险:基于登记的荟萃分析。

IF 3.8 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
JBJS Open Access Pub Date : 2025-09-19 eCollection Date: 2025-07-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.OA.25.00061
Tesfaye H Leta, Richard N Chang, Stein Atle Lie, Anne Marie Fenstad, Stein Håkon L Lygre, Martin Lindberg-Larsen, Alma B Pedersen, Annette W-Dahl, Ola Rolfson, Oskar Johansson, Liza N van Steenbergen, Rob Ghh Nelissen, Dylan Harries, Carl Holder, Peter Lewis, Richard de Steiger, Olav Lutro, Keijo Mäkelä, Mikko S Venäläinen, Jinny Willis, Chris Frampton, Michael Wyatt, Alexander Grimberg, Arnd Steinbrück, Yinan Wu, Håvard Dale, Christian Brand, Bernhard Christen, Joanne Shapiro, J Mark Wilkinson, Morgan Edwards, Geir Hallan, Jan-Erik Gjertsen, Ove Furnes, Art Sedrakyan, Heather A Prentice, Elizabeth W Paxton
{"title":"高风险患者膝关节置换术后抗生素骨水泥与感染风险:基于登记的荟萃分析。","authors":"Tesfaye H Leta, Richard N Chang, Stein Atle Lie, Anne Marie Fenstad, Stein Håkon L Lygre, Martin Lindberg-Larsen, Alma B Pedersen, Annette W-Dahl, Ola Rolfson, Oskar Johansson, Liza N van Steenbergen, Rob Ghh Nelissen, Dylan Harries, Carl Holder, Peter Lewis, Richard de Steiger, Olav Lutro, Keijo Mäkelä, Mikko S Venäläinen, Jinny Willis, Chris Frampton, Michael Wyatt, Alexander Grimberg, Arnd Steinbrück, Yinan Wu, Håvard Dale, Christian Brand, Bernhard Christen, Joanne Shapiro, J Mark Wilkinson, Morgan Edwards, Geir Hallan, Jan-Erik Gjertsen, Ove Furnes, Art Sedrakyan, Heather A Prentice, Elizabeth W Paxton","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.OA.25.00061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is debated. Some argue that ALBC might only be justified in high-risk patients. This study assessed the effectiveness of ALBC vs. plain bone cement (PBC) in reducing risk of revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in TKA patients considered to have a high risk of infection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cohort study of primary TKAs in 11 national or regional arthroplasty registries from 2010 to 2020. The 1-year risk of revision for PJI in TKAs with ALBC vs. PBC among patients with high American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, body mass index (BMI), and/or diabetes was compared. Cumulative percent revision (1 minus Kaplan-Meier) based on 685,818 TKAs and Cox regression analyses (adjusted Hazard Rate Ratios [aHRRs]) were performed for TKAs with ALBC (reference) vs. PBC restricted to the following high-risk subgroups of patients: (1) ASA ≥3 (n = 335,612 vs. 35,997), (2) BMI ≥35 (n = 278,927 vs. 24,737), (3) ASA ≥3 and BMI ≥35 (n = 99,407 vs. 11,407), (4) diabetes (n = 38,341 vs. 21,838), and (5) ASA ≥3, BMI ≥35, and diabetes (n = 3,347 vs. 4,261). Advanced distributed meta-analyses were performed to combine all aggregate data and assess 1-year risk of revision for PJI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Each registry reported a 1-year cumulative percent revision of ≤1.6% for PJI following TKAs both for ALBC and PBC in all high-risk subgroups. Similar 1-year risks of revision for PJI were found in TKAs with ALBC (reference) and PBC among patients with ASA ≥3 (aHRR: 1.09; 95% CI, 0.90-1.31); BMI ≥35 (1.06; 0.54-2.12); ASA ≥3 and BMI ≥35 (1.12; 0.83-1.50); diabetes (0.95; 0.74-1.20); and ASA ≥3, BMI ≥35, and diabetes (1.40; 0.86-2.29).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Similar 1-year revision risk of PJI was found for TKAs with ALBC vs. PBC in high-risk patients. Confirmation of the efficacy of ALBC in high-risk TKA patients needs to be evaluated in clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":36492,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Open Access","volume":"10 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12443158/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement and Risk of Infection After Knee Arthroplasty in High-Risk Patients: A Register Based Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Tesfaye H Leta, Richard N Chang, Stein Atle Lie, Anne Marie Fenstad, Stein Håkon L Lygre, Martin Lindberg-Larsen, Alma B Pedersen, Annette W-Dahl, Ola Rolfson, Oskar Johansson, Liza N van Steenbergen, Rob Ghh Nelissen, Dylan Harries, Carl Holder, Peter Lewis, Richard de Steiger, Olav Lutro, Keijo Mäkelä, Mikko S Venäläinen, Jinny Willis, Chris Frampton, Michael Wyatt, Alexander Grimberg, Arnd Steinbrück, Yinan Wu, Håvard Dale, Christian Brand, Bernhard Christen, Joanne Shapiro, J Mark Wilkinson, Morgan Edwards, Geir Hallan, Jan-Erik Gjertsen, Ove Furnes, Art Sedrakyan, Heather A Prentice, Elizabeth W Paxton\",\"doi\":\"10.2106/JBJS.OA.25.00061\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is debated. Some argue that ALBC might only be justified in high-risk patients. This study assessed the effectiveness of ALBC vs. plain bone cement (PBC) in reducing risk of revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in TKA patients considered to have a high risk of infection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cohort study of primary TKAs in 11 national or regional arthroplasty registries from 2010 to 2020. The 1-year risk of revision for PJI in TKAs with ALBC vs. PBC among patients with high American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, body mass index (BMI), and/or diabetes was compared. Cumulative percent revision (1 minus Kaplan-Meier) based on 685,818 TKAs and Cox regression analyses (adjusted Hazard Rate Ratios [aHRRs]) were performed for TKAs with ALBC (reference) vs. PBC restricted to the following high-risk subgroups of patients: (1) ASA ≥3 (n = 335,612 vs. 35,997), (2) BMI ≥35 (n = 278,927 vs. 24,737), (3) ASA ≥3 and BMI ≥35 (n = 99,407 vs. 11,407), (4) diabetes (n = 38,341 vs. 21,838), and (5) ASA ≥3, BMI ≥35, and diabetes (n = 3,347 vs. 4,261). Advanced distributed meta-analyses were performed to combine all aggregate data and assess 1-year risk of revision for PJI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Each registry reported a 1-year cumulative percent revision of ≤1.6% for PJI following TKAs both for ALBC and PBC in all high-risk subgroups. Similar 1-year risks of revision for PJI were found in TKAs with ALBC (reference) and PBC among patients with ASA ≥3 (aHRR: 1.09; 95% CI, 0.90-1.31); BMI ≥35 (1.06; 0.54-2.12); ASA ≥3 and BMI ≥35 (1.12; 0.83-1.50); diabetes (0.95; 0.74-1.20); and ASA ≥3, BMI ≥35, and diabetes (1.40; 0.86-2.29).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Similar 1-year revision risk of PJI was found for TKAs with ALBC vs. PBC in high-risk patients. Confirmation of the efficacy of ALBC in high-risk TKA patients needs to be evaluated in clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBJS Open Access\",\"volume\":\"10 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12443158/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBJS Open Access\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.25.00061\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Open Access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.25.00061","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:抗生素载骨水泥(ALBC)在原发性全膝关节置换术(TKA)中的使用存在争议。一些人认为ALBC可能只适用于高危患者。本研究评估了ALBC与普通骨水泥(PBC)在降低被认为具有高风险感染的TKA患者假体周围关节感染(PJI)翻修风险方面的有效性。方法:对2010年至2020年11个国家或地区关节置换术登记中心的原发性tka进行队列研究。比较了美国麻醉学会(ASA)分级高、体重指数(BMI)和/或糖尿病患者中ALBC和PBC tka患者PJI的1年修订风险。累积百分比修订(1 - kaplan meier)基于685818 TKAs和Cox回归分析(调整风险率比率[aHRRs])进行的TKAs ALBC(参考)和中国人民银行限于以下高危组患者:(1)ASA≥3 (n = 335612和35997),(2)BMI≥35 (n = 278927和24737),(3)ASA≥3和BMI≥35 (n = 99407和11407),(4)糖尿病(n = 38341和21838),和(5)ASA≥3,BMI≥35岁,和糖尿病(n = 3347和4261)。进行先进的分布式荟萃分析以合并所有汇总数据并评估PJI的1年修订风险。结果:每个注册中心报告,在所有高风险亚组中,ALBC和PBC的tka后,PJI的1年累积百分比修订≤1.6%。ASA≥3的tka合并ALBC(参考)和PBC (aHRR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.90-1.31)患者中PJI的1年修订风险相似;Bmi≥35 (1.06;0.54-2.12);ASA≥3,BMI≥35 (1.12;0.83-1.50);糖尿病(0.95;0.74-1.20);ASA≥3,BMI≥35,糖尿病(1.40;0.86-2.29)。结论和相关性:高危患者合并ALBC的tka与合并PBC的tka的1年PJI修订风险相似。ALBC在高危TKA患者中的疗效有待临床试验评估。证据等级:三级。有关证据水平的完整描述,请参见作者说明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement and Risk of Infection After Knee Arthroplasty in High-Risk Patients: A Register Based Meta-Analysis.

Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement and Risk of Infection After Knee Arthroplasty in High-Risk Patients: A Register Based Meta-Analysis.

Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement and Risk of Infection After Knee Arthroplasty in High-Risk Patients: A Register Based Meta-Analysis.

Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement and Risk of Infection After Knee Arthroplasty in High-Risk Patients: A Register Based Meta-Analysis.

Background: The use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is debated. Some argue that ALBC might only be justified in high-risk patients. This study assessed the effectiveness of ALBC vs. plain bone cement (PBC) in reducing risk of revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in TKA patients considered to have a high risk of infection.

Methods: Cohort study of primary TKAs in 11 national or regional arthroplasty registries from 2010 to 2020. The 1-year risk of revision for PJI in TKAs with ALBC vs. PBC among patients with high American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, body mass index (BMI), and/or diabetes was compared. Cumulative percent revision (1 minus Kaplan-Meier) based on 685,818 TKAs and Cox regression analyses (adjusted Hazard Rate Ratios [aHRRs]) were performed for TKAs with ALBC (reference) vs. PBC restricted to the following high-risk subgroups of patients: (1) ASA ≥3 (n = 335,612 vs. 35,997), (2) BMI ≥35 (n = 278,927 vs. 24,737), (3) ASA ≥3 and BMI ≥35 (n = 99,407 vs. 11,407), (4) diabetes (n = 38,341 vs. 21,838), and (5) ASA ≥3, BMI ≥35, and diabetes (n = 3,347 vs. 4,261). Advanced distributed meta-analyses were performed to combine all aggregate data and assess 1-year risk of revision for PJI.

Results: Each registry reported a 1-year cumulative percent revision of ≤1.6% for PJI following TKAs both for ALBC and PBC in all high-risk subgroups. Similar 1-year risks of revision for PJI were found in TKAs with ALBC (reference) and PBC among patients with ASA ≥3 (aHRR: 1.09; 95% CI, 0.90-1.31); BMI ≥35 (1.06; 0.54-2.12); ASA ≥3 and BMI ≥35 (1.12; 0.83-1.50); diabetes (0.95; 0.74-1.20); and ASA ≥3, BMI ≥35, and diabetes (1.40; 0.86-2.29).

Conclusions and relevance: Similar 1-year revision risk of PJI was found for TKAs with ALBC vs. PBC in high-risk patients. Confirmation of the efficacy of ALBC in high-risk TKA patients needs to be evaluated in clinical trials.

Level of evidence: Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JBJS Open Access
JBJS Open Access Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信