Cargando…
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....
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medical Journals Sweden, on behalf of the Nordic Orthopedic Federation
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10510150/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37728200 http://dx.doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.18645 |
_version_ | 1785107903691096064 |
---|---|
author | BOS, Pieter K SPEKENBRINK-SPOOREN, Anneke CROUGHS, Peter BIERMA-ZEINSTRA, Sita M A REIJMAN, Max VAN OLDENRIJK, Jakob |
author_facet | BOS, Pieter K SPEKENBRINK-SPOOREN, Anneke CROUGHS, Peter BIERMA-ZEINSTRA, Sita M A REIJMAN, Max VAN OLDENRIJK, Jakob |
author_sort | BOS, Pieter K |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10510150 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Medical Journals Sweden, on behalf of the Nordic Orthopedic Federation |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105101502023-09-21 Risk for re-revision and type of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in hip or knee arthroplasty revisions: report of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register BOS, Pieter K SPEKENBRINK-SPOOREN, Anneke CROUGHS, Peter BIERMA-ZEINSTRA, Sita M A REIJMAN, Max VAN OLDENRIJK, Jakob Acta Orthop Article 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. Medical Journals Sweden, on behalf of the Nordic Orthopedic Federation 2023-09-20 /pmc/articles/PMC10510150/ /pubmed/37728200 http://dx.doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.18645 Text en © 2023 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution to the original work. |
spellingShingle | Article BOS, Pieter K SPEKENBRINK-SPOOREN, Anneke CROUGHS, Peter BIERMA-ZEINSTRA, Sita M A REIJMAN, Max VAN OLDENRIJK, Jakob Risk for re-revision and type of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in hip or knee arthroplasty revisions: report of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register |
title | Risk for re-revision and type of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in hip or knee arthroplasty revisions: report of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register |
title_full | Risk for re-revision and type of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in hip or knee arthroplasty revisions: report of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register |
title_fullStr | Risk for re-revision and type of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in hip or knee arthroplasty revisions: report of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register |
title_full_unstemmed | Risk for re-revision and type of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in hip or knee arthroplasty revisions: report of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register |
title_short | Risk for re-revision and type of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in hip or knee arthroplasty revisions: report of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register |
title_sort | risk for re-revision and type of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in hip or knee arthroplasty revisions: report of the dutch arthroplasty register |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10510150/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37728200 http://dx.doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.18645 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bospieterk riskforrerevisionandtypeofantibioticloadedbonecementinhiporkneearthroplastyrevisionsreportofthedutcharthroplastyregister AT spekenbrinkspoorenanneke riskforrerevisionandtypeofantibioticloadedbonecementinhiporkneearthroplastyrevisionsreportofthedutcharthroplastyregister AT croughspeter riskforrerevisionandtypeofantibioticloadedbonecementinhiporkneearthroplastyrevisionsreportofthedutcharthroplastyregister AT biermazeinstrasitama riskforrerevisionandtypeofantibioticloadedbonecementinhiporkneearthroplastyrevisionsreportofthedutcharthroplastyregister AT reijmanmax riskforrerevisionandtypeofantibioticloadedbonecementinhiporkneearthroplastyrevisionsreportofthedutcharthroplastyregister AT vanoldenrijkjakob riskforrerevisionandtypeofantibioticloadedbonecementinhiporkneearthroplastyrevisionsreportofthedutcharthroplastyregister |