Cargando…

A Low Rate of Periprosthetic Infections after Aseptic Knee Prosthesis Revision Using Dual-Antibiotic-Impregnated Bone Cement

Aim: The incidence of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) following aseptic knee revision arthroplasty lies between 3% and 7.5%. The aim of this study was to verify the hypothesis that the use of dual-antibiotic-impregnated cement in knee revision arthroplasty leads to a lower rate of periprosthet...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Blersch, Benedikt Paul, Barthels, Michael, Schuster, Philipp, Fink, Bernd
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10525338/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37760665
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12091368
_version_ 1785110760797503488
author Blersch, Benedikt Paul
Barthels, Michael
Schuster, Philipp
Fink, Bernd
author_facet Blersch, Benedikt Paul
Barthels, Michael
Schuster, Philipp
Fink, Bernd
author_sort Blersch, Benedikt Paul
collection PubMed
description Aim: The incidence of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) following aseptic knee revision arthroplasty lies between 3% and 7.5%. The aim of this study was to verify the hypothesis that the use of dual-antibiotic-impregnated cement in knee revision arthroplasty leads to a lower rate of periprosthetic joint infections. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 403 aseptic revision knee arthroplasties performed between January 2013 and March 2021 (148 revisions of a unicompartmental prosthesis, 188 revisions of a bicondylar total knee arthroplasty (TKA), 41 revisions of an axis-guided prosthesis, and 26 revisions of only one component of a surface replacement prosthesis). The bone cement Copal G+C (Heraeus Medical, Wertheim, Germany) with two antibiotics—gentamycin and clindamycin—was used for the fixation of the new implant. The follow-up period was 53.4 ± 27.9 (4.0–115.0) months. Results: Five patients suffered from PJI within follow-up (1.2%). The revision rate for any reason was 8.7%. Survival for any reason was significantly different between the types of revision (p = 0.026, Log-Rank-test), with lower survival rates after more complex surgical procedures. The 5-year survival rate with regard to revision for any reason was 91.3% [88.2–94.4%] and with regard to revision for PJI 98.2% [98.7–99.9%], respectively. Conclusion: The use of the dual-antibiotic-impregnated bone cement Copal G+C results in a lower rate of periprosthetic infections after aseptic knee prosthesis replacement than that reported in published prosthesis revisions using only one antibiotic in the bone cement.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10525338
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105253382023-09-28 A Low Rate of Periprosthetic Infections after Aseptic Knee Prosthesis Revision Using Dual-Antibiotic-Impregnated Bone Cement Blersch, Benedikt Paul Barthels, Michael Schuster, Philipp Fink, Bernd Antibiotics (Basel) Article Aim: The incidence of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) following aseptic knee revision arthroplasty lies between 3% and 7.5%. The aim of this study was to verify the hypothesis that the use of dual-antibiotic-impregnated cement in knee revision arthroplasty leads to a lower rate of periprosthetic joint infections. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 403 aseptic revision knee arthroplasties performed between January 2013 and March 2021 (148 revisions of a unicompartmental prosthesis, 188 revisions of a bicondylar total knee arthroplasty (TKA), 41 revisions of an axis-guided prosthesis, and 26 revisions of only one component of a surface replacement prosthesis). The bone cement Copal G+C (Heraeus Medical, Wertheim, Germany) with two antibiotics—gentamycin and clindamycin—was used for the fixation of the new implant. The follow-up period was 53.4 ± 27.9 (4.0–115.0) months. Results: Five patients suffered from PJI within follow-up (1.2%). The revision rate for any reason was 8.7%. Survival for any reason was significantly different between the types of revision (p = 0.026, Log-Rank-test), with lower survival rates after more complex surgical procedures. The 5-year survival rate with regard to revision for any reason was 91.3% [88.2–94.4%] and with regard to revision for PJI 98.2% [98.7–99.9%], respectively. Conclusion: The use of the dual-antibiotic-impregnated bone cement Copal G+C results in a lower rate of periprosthetic infections after aseptic knee prosthesis replacement than that reported in published prosthesis revisions using only one antibiotic in the bone cement. MDPI 2023-08-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10525338/ /pubmed/37760665 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12091368 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Blersch, Benedikt Paul
Barthels, Michael
Schuster, Philipp
Fink, Bernd
A Low Rate of Periprosthetic Infections after Aseptic Knee Prosthesis Revision Using Dual-Antibiotic-Impregnated Bone Cement
title A Low Rate of Periprosthetic Infections after Aseptic Knee Prosthesis Revision Using Dual-Antibiotic-Impregnated Bone Cement
title_full A Low Rate of Periprosthetic Infections after Aseptic Knee Prosthesis Revision Using Dual-Antibiotic-Impregnated Bone Cement
title_fullStr A Low Rate of Periprosthetic Infections after Aseptic Knee Prosthesis Revision Using Dual-Antibiotic-Impregnated Bone Cement
title_full_unstemmed A Low Rate of Periprosthetic Infections after Aseptic Knee Prosthesis Revision Using Dual-Antibiotic-Impregnated Bone Cement
title_short A Low Rate of Periprosthetic Infections after Aseptic Knee Prosthesis Revision Using Dual-Antibiotic-Impregnated Bone Cement
title_sort low rate of periprosthetic infections after aseptic knee prosthesis revision using dual-antibiotic-impregnated bone cement
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10525338/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37760665
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12091368
work_keys_str_mv AT blerschbenediktpaul alowrateofperiprostheticinfectionsafteraseptickneeprosthesisrevisionusingdualantibioticimpregnatedbonecement
AT barthelsmichael alowrateofperiprostheticinfectionsafteraseptickneeprosthesisrevisionusingdualantibioticimpregnatedbonecement
AT schusterphilipp alowrateofperiprostheticinfectionsafteraseptickneeprosthesisrevisionusingdualantibioticimpregnatedbonecement
AT finkbernd alowrateofperiprostheticinfectionsafteraseptickneeprosthesisrevisionusingdualantibioticimpregnatedbonecement
AT blerschbenediktpaul lowrateofperiprostheticinfectionsafteraseptickneeprosthesisrevisionusingdualantibioticimpregnatedbonecement
AT barthelsmichael lowrateofperiprostheticinfectionsafteraseptickneeprosthesisrevisionusingdualantibioticimpregnatedbonecement
AT schusterphilipp lowrateofperiprostheticinfectionsafteraseptickneeprosthesisrevisionusingdualantibioticimpregnatedbonecement
AT finkbernd lowrateofperiprostheticinfectionsafteraseptickneeprosthesisrevisionusingdualantibioticimpregnatedbonecement