Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38780939›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty With or Without Antibiotic Bone Cement.

Tesfaye H Leta, Stein Atle Lie, Anne Marie Fenstad, Stein Håkon L Lygre, Martin Lindberg-Larsen, Alma B Pedersen, Annette W-Dahl, Ola Rolfson, Erik Bülow, Liza N van Steenbergen and 33 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The application of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in preventing periprosthetic joint infection: an umbrella review.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

43 authors.

Tesfaye H LetaThe Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Stein Atle LieThe Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Anne Marie FenstadThe Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Stein Håkon L LygreThe Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Martin Lindberg-LarsenThe Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register, Odense, Denmark.
Alma B PedersenThe Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register, Odense, Denmark.
Annette W-DahlThe Swedish Arthroplasty Register, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Ola RolfsonThe Swedish Arthroplasty Register, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Erik BülowInstitute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Liza N van SteenbergenThe Dutch Arthroplasty Register, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.
Rob G H H NelissenThe Dutch Arthroplasty Register, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.
Dylan HarriesSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia.
Richard de SteigerThe Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, Adelaide, Australia.
Olav LutroDepartment of Medicine, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Keijo MäkeläThe Finnish Arthroplasty Register, Helsinki, Finland.
Mikko S VenäläinenDepartment of Medical Physics, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Jinny WillisThe New Zealand Joint Registry, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Michael WyattThe New Zealand Joint Registry, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Chris FramptonThe New Zealand Joint Registry, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Alexander GrimbergGerman Arthroplasty Registry, Berlin, Germany.
Arnd SteinbrückGerman Arthroplasty Registry, Berlin, Germany.
Yinan WuGerman Arthroplasty Registry, Berlin, Germany.
Cristiana ArmaroliArthroplasty Registry of the Autonomous Province of Trento, Clinical Epidemiology Service, Provincial Agency for Health Services of Trento, Trento, Italy.
Maria Adalgisa GentiliniArthroplasty Registry of the Autonomous Province of Trento, Clinical Epidemiology Service, Provincial Agency for Health Services of Trento, Trento, Italy.
Roberto PicusArthroplasty Register of Autonomous Province of Bolzano, Observatory of Health, Health Department AP of Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy.
Mirko BonettiArthroplasty Register of Autonomous Province of Bolzano, Observatory of Health, Health Department AP of Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy.
Serban DragosloveanuRomanian Arthroplasty Registry, Bucharest, Romania.
Andreea E VorovenciRomanian Arthroplasty Registry, Bucharest, Romania.
Dan DragomirescuRomanian Arthroplasty Registry, Bucharest, Romania.
Håvard DaleThe Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Christian BrandSwiss National Hip and Knee Joint Registry, Bern, Switzerland.
Bernhard ChristenSwiss National Hip and Knee Joint Registry, Bern, Switzerland.
Joanne ShapiroThe National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, The Isle of Man and Guernsey, London, United Kingdom.
J Mark WilkinsonThe National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, The Isle of Man and Guernsey, London, United Kingdom.
Richard ArmstrongThe National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, The Isle of Man and Guernsey, London, United Kingdom.
Kate WoosterThe National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, The Isle of Man and Guernsey, London, United Kingdom.
Geir HallanThe Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Jan-Erik GjertsenThe Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Richard N ChangMedical Device Surveillance and Assessment, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, California.
Heather A PrenticeMedical Device Surveillance and Assessment, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, California.
Art SedrakyanDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York.
Elizabeth W PaxtonMedical Device Surveillance and Assessment, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, California.
Ove FurnesThe Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Despite increased use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in joint arthroplasty over recent decades, current evidence for prophylactic use of ALBC to reduce risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is insufficient. Objective: To compare the rate of revision attributed to PJI following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using ALBC vs plain bone cement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This international cohort study used data from 14 national or regional joint arthroplasty registries in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the UK, and the US. The study included primary TKAs for osteoarthritis registered from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020, and followed-up until December 31, 2021. Data analysis was performed from April to September 2023. Exposure: Primary TKA with ALBC vs plain bone cement. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was risk of 1-year revision for PJI. Using a distributed data network analysis method, data were harmonized, and a cumulative revision rate was calculated (1 - Kaplan-Meier), and Cox regression analyses were performed within the 10 registries using both cement types. A meta-analysis was then performed to combine all aggregated data and evaluate the risk of 1-year revision for PJI and all causes. Results: Among 2 168 924 TKAs included, 93% were performed with ALBC. Most TKAs were performed in female patients (59.5%) and patients aged 65 to 74 years (39.9%), fully cemented (92.2%), and in the 2015 to 2020 period (62.5%). All participating registries reported a cumulative 1-year revision rate for PJI of less than 1% following primary TKA with ALBC (range, 0.21%-0.80%) and with plain bone cement (range, 0.23%-0.70%). The meta-analyses based on adjusted Cox regression for 1 917 190 TKAs showed no statistically significant difference at 1 year in risk of revision for PJI (hazard rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.89-1.52) or for all causes (hazard rate ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.89-1.40) among TKAs performed with ALBC vs plain bone cement. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the risk of revision for PJI was similar between ALBC and plain bone cement following primary TKA. Any additional costs of ALBC and its relative value in reducing revision risk should be considered in the context of the overall health care delivery system.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeBone CementsProsthesis-Related InfectionsRegistriesReoperationAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsBone Cements

Identifiers

PMID38780939
PMCPMC11117087

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.