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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |