Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32698642›Full record

Observational studyActa orthopaedica2020

Similar risk of complete revision for infection with single-dose versus multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in primary arthroplasty of the hip and knee: results of an observational cohort study in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register in 242,179 patients.

Ewout S Veltman, Erik Lenguerrand, Dirk Jan F Moojen, Michael R Whitehouse, Rob G H H Nelissen, Ashley W Blom, Rudolf W Poolman

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Acta orthopaedica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Single-DoseIndian journal of orthopaedics · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ewout S VeltmanDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Joint Research, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Erik Lenguerrand3Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Dirk Jan F MoojenDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Joint Research, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Michael R Whitehouse3Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Rob G H H NelissenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Ashley W Blom3Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Rudolf W PoolmanDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Joint Research, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose - The optimal type and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis for primary arthroplasty of the hip and knee are subject to debate. We compared the risk of complete revision (obtained by a 1- or 2-stage procedure) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary total hip or knee arthroplasty between patients receiving a single dose of prophylactic antibiotics and patients receiving multiple doses of antibiotics for prevention of PJI. Patients and methods - A cohort of 130,712 primary total hip and 111,467 knee arthroplasties performed between 2011 and 2015 in the Netherlands was analyzed. We linked data from the Dutch arthroplasty register to a survey collected across all Dutch institutions on hospital-level antibiotic prophylaxis policy. We used restricted cubic spline Poisson models adjusted for hospital clustering to compare the risk of revision for infection according to type and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis received. Results - For total hip arthroplasties, the rates of revision for infection were 31/10,000 person-years (95% CI 28-35), 39 (25-59), and 23 (15-34) in the groups that received multiple doses of cefazolin, multiple doses of cefuroxime, and a single dose of cefazolin, respectively. The rates for knee arthroplasties were 27/10,000 person-years (95% CI 24-31), 40 (24-62), and 24 (16-36). Similar risk of complete revision for infection among antibiotic prophylaxis regimens was found when adjusting for confounders. Interpretation - In a large observational cohort we found no apparent association between the type or duration of antibiotic prophylaxis and the risk of complete revision for infection. This does question whether there is any advantage to the use of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis beyond a single dose.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeProsthesis-Related InfectionsReoperationRisk AdjustmentAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic ProphylaxisCefazolinCefuroximeDose-Response Relationship, DrugDuration of TherapyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCefazolinCefuroxime

Identifiers

PMID32698642
PMCPMC8023957
OpenAlexW3044908065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.