Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38691147›Full record

SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024

Local antibiotic delivery via intra-articular catheter infusion for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review.

S Bruyninckx, W J Metsemakers, M Depypere, L Henckaerts, E van den Hout, J Onsea, S Ghijselings, G F Vles

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Effects of high-concentration of vancomycin and meropenem on viability and osteogenic differentiation of rat bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S BruyninckxDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. sander.bruyninckx07@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-0725-8467
W J MetsemakersDepartment of Trauma Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
M DepypereDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
L HenckaertsDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology and Transplantation, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
E van den HoutDepartment of General Internal Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
J OnseaDepartment of Trauma Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
S GhijselingsDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
G F VlesDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is an increasing interest in the use of intra-articular (IA) antibiotic infusion as a stand-alone or adjuvant therapy to standard revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the evidence with respect to this up-and-coming treatment modality.

methodsA systematic review of studies published until April 2023 was conducted using PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases. Quality assessment was performed with the National Institute of Health quality assessment tool. Inclusion criteria were adult patients (≥ 18 years) with a mean follow-up of ≥ 11 months and a score ≥ 6 on the National Institute of Health quality assessment tool. Primary outcome was eradication of infection.

results15 articles, encompassing 631 PJIs in 626 patients, were included in the final analysis, all level IV case series. The majority was treated with single-stage revision with adjuvant IA antibiotic infusion (79.1%). The remaining PJIs were treated with stand-alone IA antibiotic infusion (12.2%), DAIR (debridement, antibiotics and implant retention) with adjuvant IA antibiotic infusion (5.7%) or two-stage revision with adjuvant IA antibiotic infusion (3.0%). Mean duration of IA antibiotic infusion was 19 days (range 3-50). An overall failure rate of approximately 11% was found. In total 117 complications occurred, 71 were non-catheter-related and 46 were catheter-related. The most common catheter-related complications were premature loss of the catheter (18/46) and elevated blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine levels (12/46).

conclusionsDue to the lack of comparative studies the (added) benefit of IA antibiotic infusion in the treatment of PJI remains uncertain. Based on the current evidence, we would advise against using it as a stand-alone treatment. A prospective randomized controlled trial using a well-described infusion protocol is needed to see if the potential benefits justify the increased costs and potential complications of this treatment modality.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsProsthesis-Related InfectionsHumansReoperationAnti-Bacterial AgentsIntra-articular antibioticsIntra-articular infusionLocal antibiotic deliveryPeriprosthetic joint infectionPJISystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38691147
OpenAlexW4396546670

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.