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....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: BOS, Pieter K, SPEKENBRINK-SPOOREN, Anneke, CROUGHS, Peter, BIERMA-ZEINSTRA, Sita M A, REIJMAN, Max, VAN OLDENRIJK, Jakob
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