Antibiotic bone cement's effect on infection rates in primary and revision total knee arthroplasties

AIM To compare infection rates in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty(TKA) procedures using antibiotic impregnated bone cement(AIBC) to those rates in procedures not using AIBC.METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in search for randomized controlled trials/studies(RCTs) pertaining to the field of antibiotic AIBC vs non-AIBC groups in both primary and revision TKA procedures. The primary literature search performed was to identify all RCTs that assessed AIBC in primary and revision TKA procedures. This search was done strictly through the Pub Med database using the article "filters" setting that identified and separated all RCTs from the overall search. The original search was "Primary/revision total knee arthroplasty using AIBC". Other key terms and phrases were included in the search as well. Eligible articles that were used in the "results" of this review met the following criteria:(1) Involved primary or revision TKA procedures(for any reason);(2) included TKA outcome infection rate information;(3) analyzed an AIBC group vs a non-AIBC control group;(4) were found through the RCT filter or hand search in Pub Med; and(5) published 1985-2017. Exclusion criteria was as follows:(1) Patients that were not undergoing primary or revision TKA procedures;(2) articles that did not separate total hip arthroplasity(THA) vs TKA results if both hip and knee revisions were evaluated;(3) papers that did not follow up on clinical outcomes of the procedure;(4) extrapolation of data was not possible given published results;(5) knee revisions not done on human patients;(6) studies that were strictly done on THAs;(7) articles that were not found through the RCT filter or through hand search in Pub Med;(8) articles that did not evaluate AIBC used in a prosthesis or a spacer during revision;(9) articles that did not compare an AIBC group vs a non-AIBC control group; and(10) articles that were published before 1985.RESULTS In total, 11 articles were deemed eligible for this analysis. Nine of the 11 studies dealt with primary TKA procedures comparing AIBC to non-AIBC treatment. The other two studies dealt with revision TKA procedures that compared such groups. From these papers, 4092 TKA procedures were found. 3903 of these were primary TKAs, while 189 were revision TKAs. Of the 3903 primary TKAs, 1979 of these used some form of AIBC while 1924 were part of a non-AIBC control group. Of the 189 revision TKAs, 96 of these used some form of AIBC while 93 were part of a non-AIBC control group. Average followup times of 47.2 mo and 62.5 mo were found in primary and revision groups respectively. A two-tailed Fisher's exact test was done to check if infection rates differed significantly between the groups. In the primary TKA group, a statistically significant difference between AIBC and non-AIBC groups was not found(AIBC infection rate = 23/1979, non-AIBC infection rate = 35/1924, P = 0.1132). In the revision TKA group, a statistically significant difference between the groups was found(AIBC infection rate = 0/96, non-AIBC infection rate = 7/93, P = 0.0062). No statistically significant differences existed in Knee Society Scores, Hospital for Special Surgery Scores, or Loosening Rates.CONCLUSION AIBC did not have a significant effect on primary TKA infection rates. AIBC did have a significant effect on revision TKA infection rates.