Literature DB >> 32682594

Is Dual Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement More Effective and Cost-Efficient Than a Single Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement to Reduce the Risk of Prosthetic Joint Infection in Aseptic Revision Knee Arthroplasty?

Pablo Sanz-Ruiz1, José Antonio Matas-Diez2, Manuel Villanueva-Martínez3, Alex Dos Santos-Vaquinha Blanco2, Javier Vaquero1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Higher rates of prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are related to patient risk factors and/or to special surgical procedures such as revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). Among the measures discussed to better protect those patients from the higher infection risks use of dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement has emerged as a further prophylactic option.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 246 patients undergoing strictly aseptic revision knee arthroplasty at our institution in the time period 2015-2018. Based on the type of bone cement used for the cementation of the revision prosthesis, 2 groups were defined. In total, 143 patients received the low-dose single antibiotic-loaded bone cement (SALBC) PALACOS R+G and 103 patients received the high-dose dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement (DALBC) COPAL G+C. The number of PJI cases in each group over a follow-up time of minimum 1 year was compared and the extra costs for the DALBC use calculated against the economic savings per each avoided PJI case on basis of 3 different assumptions (treatment costs and amount of cement use).
RESULTS: Use of DALBC in aseptic rTKA was associated with a significant reduction in PJI cases (relative risk = 57%, PJI rate in the SALBC group 4.1% vs 0% in the DALBC group, P = 0.035). The calculated total savings per patient was $1367. Depending on the economic assumptions the range of savings was between $1413 (less favorable calculation model) and $3661 (most favorable calculation model).
CONCLUSION: The use of DALBC in rTKA has been found to be more effective in preventing PJI and proved cost-efficient in all our cost-calculation models.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COPAL; aseptic revision; dual antibiotic-loaded cement; infection cost; prosthetic joint infection

Year:  2020        PMID: 32682594     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.06.045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  5 in total

1.  [Manual addition of antibiotics to industrial bone cement mixes : Investigations of the dry mix in the cement cartridge during manual admixture to polymer-active substance mixtures].

Authors:  Mustafa Citak; Stefan Luck; Philip Linke; Thorsten Gehrke; Klaus-Dieter Kühn
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 2.  Dual antibiotic loaded bone cement in patients at high infection risks in arthroplasty: Rationale of use for prophylaxis and scientific evidence.

Authors:  Christof Ernst Berberich; Jérôme Josse; Frédéric Laurent; Tristan Ferry
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2021-03-18

3.  Periprosthetic joint infections in femoral neck fracture patients treated with hemiarthroplasty - should we use antibiotic-loaded bone cement?

Authors:  Diana Crego-Vita; Daniel Aedo-Martín; Rafael Garcia-Cañas; Andrea Espigares-Correa; Coral Sánchez-Pérez; Christof Ernst Berberich
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2022-02-18

Review 4.  Patients at a high risk of PJI: Can we reduce the incidence of infection using dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement?

Authors:  Christof Berberich; Jerôme Josse; Pablo Sanz Ruiz
Journal:  Arthroplasty       Date:  2022-09-07

5.  Application and Clinical Effectiveness of Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement to Promote Soft Tissue Granulation in the Treatment of Neuropathic Diabetic Foot Ulcers Complicated by Osteomyelitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Regis Ernest Mendame Ehya; Hao Zhang; Baiwen Qi; Aixi Yu
Journal:  J Diabetes Res       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 4.011

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.