ArticleJournal of orthopaedics
The cost-effectiveness of antibiotic-loaded bone cement versus plain bone cement following total and partial knee and hip arthroplasty.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- 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.Journal of diabetes research · 2021Trial
- Effects of Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement on the Risk of Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2026Review
- The first causal inference analysis of the Catalan Arthroplasty Register shows a positive effect of antibiotic-loaded bone cement on knee prosthesis survival.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Antibiotic-loaded bone cement is associated with a reduction of the risk of revision of total knee arthroplasty: Analysis of the Catalan Arthroplasty Register.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Article
- Article
- N-acetyl cysteine as an additive to bone cement against pathogens involved in periprosthetic joint infections.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- The impact of pathogen sensitivity to antibiotics loaded in cement on the number of revisions and costs in the treatment of periprosthetic knee infection.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024Article
- Cement loaded with high-dose gentamicin and clindamycin does not reduce the risk of subsequent infection after aseptic total hip or knee revision arthroplasty: a preliminary study.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024Article
- The effect of different preventive strategies during total joint arthroplasty on periprosthetic joint infection: a network meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty With or Without Antibiotic Bone Cement.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- The economic and clinical impact of fast- versus slow-setting cement in primary total knee arthroplasty.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Routine use of antibiotic-laden bone cement in total knee arthroplasty is a cost-effective practice in the single-payer healthcare system.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Article
- Article
- The Effect of TBB, as an Initiator, on the Biological Compatibility of PMMA/MMA Bone Cement.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement and Risk of Infection After Knee Arthroplasty in High-Risk Patients: A Register Based Meta-Analysis.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative infection is one of the most prevalent complications following total joint arthroplasty (TJA). As such procedures become more prevalent, it is imperative that we develop new prophylactic methods to prevent the need for revision procedures. In recent years, surgeons have opted to use antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) rather than plain bone cement (PBC) in primary hip and knee replacements due to its theoretical potential of lowering infection rates. However, the cost-effectiveness of this intervention remains in question.Questions/Purposes: To determine the rate of infection and cost-effectiveness of antibiotic-loaded bone cement as compared to plain bone cement in hip and knee arthroplasty. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe reviewed 4116 primary hip and knee arthroplasty cases performed between 2016 and 2018 at Morristown Medical Center in New Jersey. Data regarding demographics, complications, and any readmissions due to deep infection were collected retrospectively. During that time period there were a total of 4016 knee cases (423 ALBC, 3593 PBC) and 123 hip cases (63 ALBC, 60 PBC). The average cost for one bag of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and plain bone cement for hip and knee arthroplasty was $336.42 and $72.14, respectively. A statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test; the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) surgical site infection guidelines were used to distinguish between superficial and deep infections.
resultsTen patients were readmitted due to deep infection, all of whom had undergone total knee arthroplasty. Of those cases, plain bone cement was used for the index procedure in seven instances and antibiotic-loaded cement was used in three. This resulted in an infection rate of 0.19% and 0.62%, respectively, p = 0.103. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the two groups. A total of 778 bags of ALBC were used in 423 knee surgeries, and 98 bags of ALBC were used in 63 hip cases. The total cost for ALBC in TKA and THA procedures was $261,734.76 (778*336.42) and $32,969.16 (98*336.42), respectively. If PBC had been used during all index procedures, it would have resulted in a total savings of $231,509.28.
conclusionsAntibiotic-loaded cement did not significantly reduce the rate of infection for either knee or hip arthroplasty. Thus, the routine use of antibiotic-loaded cement in primary hip and knee arthroplasty may be an unnecessary financial burden to the healthcare system. A larger sample size and a randomized controlled trial would help confirm our findings and would provide further information on the cost-effectiveness of ALBC cement versus PBC.Significance/Clinical Relevance: In this review of cases performed from 2016 to 2018 there was no statistically significant difference between the rate of infection and the need for revision surgeries for patients treated with ALBC versus PBC. As hospital systems continue to transition towards a bundled payment model, it becomes imperative for providers to reduce any unnecessary costs in order to increase quality and efficiency. We estimate that our hospital system could save nearly $120,000/year by using plain bone cement instead of antibiotic-loaded cement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.