ArticleActa orthopaedica2023
No difference in risk of revision due to infection between clindamycin and cephalosporins as antibiotic prophylaxis in cemented primary total knee replacements: a report from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 2005-2020.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Impact of Antibiotic Bone Cement on Infection Rates in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A GRADE-Assessed Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies Involving Over 4 Million Patients.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Review
- Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in arthroplasty - a narrative review of how many doses are optimal.EFORT open reviews · 2024Review
- Enhancing Surgical Outcomes: A Critical Review of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Orthopedic Surgery.Cureus · 2023Review
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
background and purposeSystemic antibiotic prophylaxis with clindamycin, which is often used in penicillin- or cephalosporin-allergic patients', has been associated with a higher risk of surgical revision for deep prosthetic joint infection (PJI) than cloxacillin in primary total knee replacement (TKR). We aimed to investigate whether clindamycin increases the risk of surgical revisions due to PJI compared with cephalosporins in primary cemented TKR. PATIENTS AND
methodsData from 59,081 TKRs in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) 2005-2020 was included. 2,655 (5%) received clindamycin and 56,426 (95%) received cephalosporins. Cox regression analyses were performed with adjustment for sex, age groups, diagnosis, and ASA score. Survival times were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared using Cox regression with revision for PJI as endpoint. The cephalosporins cefalotin and cefazolin were also compared.
resultsOf the TKRs included, 1.3% (n = 743) were revised for PJI. 96% (n = 713) had received cephalosporins and 4% (n = 30) clindamycin for perioperative prophylaxis. Comparing cephalosporins (reference) and clindamycin, at 3-month follow-up the adjusted hazard ratio rate (HRR) for PJI was 0.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-1.4), at 1 year 0.9 (CI 0.6-1.5), and at 5 years 0.9 (CI 0.6-1.4). Analysis using propensity score matching showed similar results. Furthermore, comparing cefalotin (reference) and cefazolin, HRR was 1.0 (CI 0.8-1.4) at 3 months and 1.0 (CI 0.7-1.3) at 1-year follow-up.
conclusionWe found no difference in risk of revision for PJI when using clindamycin compared with cephalosporins in primary cemented TKRs. It appears safe to continue the use of clindamycin in penicillin- or cephalosporin-allergic patients.
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.