» Articles » PMID: 36068617

Patients at a High Risk of PJI: Can We Reduce the Incidence of Infection Using Dual Antibiotic-loaded Bone Cement?

Overview
Journal Arthroplasty
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2022 Sep 6
PMID 36068617
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most devastating complications of orthopedic surgery. However, not all patients are equally at the risk of severe infection. The incidences of PJI vary with the host and surgery-related risk factors. It is now generally accepted that some important medical comorbidities may predispose the patients to a high risk of PJI. Time-consuming and invasive surgical procedures, such as revision arthroplasties, are also associated with a high incidence of PJI, presumably due to the increased risk of surgical site contamination. Effective infection-preventing strategies should begin with identifying and optimizing the patients at a high risk of infection prior to surgery. Optimizing the operating room environment and antibiotic prophylaxis are also essential strategies that help minimize the overall incidence of infection in orthopedic surgery. The ideal antibiotic prophylaxis is still under debate, and discussions have emerged about whether variations or adjustments to the standard protocol are justified in patients at a high risk of infection. This also includes evaluating the possible benefits and risks of using high-dose dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement instead of low-dose single antibiotic-loaded bone cement in arthroplasty. This review summarizes the evidence showing that the combination of two local antibiotics in bone cement exerts a strong and longer-lasting antimicrobial effect against PJI-associated pathogens. This conclusion is consistent with the preliminary clinical studies showing a low incidence of PJI in high-risk patients undergoing cemented hemiarthroplasty, cemented revision, and primary arthroplasty if dual ALBC is used. These results may encourage clinicians to consolidate this hypothesis in a wider clinical range.

Citing Articles

-Defensin conventional markers of inflammation in periprosthetic joint infection: a retrospective study.

Fernandez-Torres J, Zamudio-Cuevas Y, Martinez-Flores K, Lopez-Macay A, Rosas-Alquicira G, Martinez-Zavaleta M PeerJ. 2024; 12:e18560.

PMID: 39575176 PMC: 11580661. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18560.


An Antibacterial-Loaded PLA 3D-Printed Model for Temporary Prosthesis in Arthroplasty Infections: Evaluation of the Impact of Layer Thickness on the Mechanical Strength of a Construct and Drug Release.

Tamarit-Martinez C, Bernat-Just L, Bueno-Lopez C, Alambiaga-Caravaca A, Merino V, Lopez-Castellano A Pharmaceutics. 2024; 16(9).

PMID: 39339188 PMC: 11434902. DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics16091151.


Evaluating ChatGPT responses to frequently asked patient questions regarding periprosthetic joint infection after total hip and knee arthroplasty.

Hu X, Niemann M, Kienzle A, Braun K, Back D, Gwinner C Digit Health. 2024; 10:20552076241272620.

PMID: 39130521 PMC: 11311159. DOI: 10.1177/20552076241272620.


Editorial: Management of PJI/SSI after joint arthroplasty.

Cao L, Parvizi J, Zhang X, Liu X, Zijlstra W, Tarabichi S Arthroplasty. 2024; 6(1):31.

PMID: 38840191 PMC: 11155056. DOI: 10.1186/s42836-024-00256-0.


Daptomycin-Impregnated PMMA Cement against Vancomycin-Resistant Germs: Dosage, Handling, Elution, Mechanical Stability, and Effectiveness.

Humez M, Domann E, Thormann K, Folsch C, Strathausen R, Vogt S Antibiotics (Basel). 2023; 12(11).

PMID: 37998769 PMC: 10668807. DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12111567.


References
1.
Tan T, Maltenfort M, Chen A, Shahi A, Higuera C, Siqueira M . Development and Evaluation of a Preoperative Risk Calculator for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Total Joint Arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018; 100(9):777-785. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.16.01435. View

2.
Tyas B, Marsh M, Oswald T, Refaie R, Molyneux C, Reed M . Antibiotic resistance profiles of deep surgical site infections in hip hemiarthroplasty; comparing low dose single antibiotic versus high dose dual antibiotic impregnated cement. J Bone Jt Infect. 2018; 3(3):123-129. PMC: 6043471. DOI: 10.7150/jbji.22192. View

3.
Oe K, Iida H, Ueda N, Nakamura T, Okamoto N, Ueda Y . In vivo serum concentration of vancomycin in antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement for the treatment and prevention of periprosthetic hip infection. J Orthop Sci. 2017; 22(4):710-714. DOI: 10.1016/j.jos.2017.03.003. View

4.
Ensing G, van Horn J, van der Mei H, Busscher H, Neut D . Copal bone cement is more effective in preventing biofilm formation than Palacos R-G. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008; 466(6):1492-8. PMC: 2384043. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0203-x. View

5.
Hansen E, Adeli B, Kenyon R, Parvizi J . Routine use of antibiotic laden bone cement for primary total knee arthroplasty: impact on infecting microbial patterns and resistance profiles. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29(6):1123-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.12.004. View