Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39048851›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology2024

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.

Ceyran Hamoudi, Marie Hamon, Aurélie Reiter-Schatz, Pierre-Antoine Debordes, Jeannot Gaudias, Cécile Rondé-Oustau, Jean-Yves Jenny

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Diagnostic work-up in periprosthetic joint infections of the knee: can the albumin-to-globulin ratio be a screening tool?Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2025
    Article
  8. 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.

Ceyran HamoudiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Marie HamonDepartment of Pharmacy, CHU de Caen, Caen, France.
Aurélie Reiter-SchatzDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Pierre-Antoine DebordesDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Jeannot GaudiasDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Cécile Rondé-OustauDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Jean-Yves JennyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. docteur.jenny@free.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9146-9792

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to quantify the prophylactic effect of high-dose gentamicin and clindamycin antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) during revision total hip (rTHA) or knee (rTKA) arthroplasty for aseptic reasons. The hypothesis was that the raw surgical site infection (SSI) rate is lower when this particular cement is used in comparison with cement loaded with standard-dose gentamicin during rTHA or rTKA for aseptic reasons.

methodsThis retrospective study included 290 consecutive patients undergoing aseptic rTHA or rTKA. Two consecutive cohorts were defined: the first (control group) involved 145 patients where ALBC with gentamicin only was used; the second (study group) involved 145 patients where ALBC with high-dose gentamicin and clindamycin was used. The primary endpoint was the raw SSI rate after 24 months.

resultsThe raw SSI rate was 8/145 (6%) in the control group and 13/145 (9%) in the study group (odds ratio 0.62, p = 0.26). There was a significant impact of the presence of any risk factor on the SSI rate (15/100 versus 6/169, odds ratio = 4.25, p = 0.002), but no significant impact of any individual risk factor. No complication or side effect related to ALBC was observed in either group.

conclusionThese results do not support the routine use of gentamicin and clindamycin ALBC for fixation of revision implants after rTHA and rTKA for aseptic reasons.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsArthroplasty, Replacement, HipArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeBone CementsClindamycinGentamicinsProsthesis-Related InfectionsReoperationSurgical Wound InfectionAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBone CementsClindamycinGentamicinsAseptic revisionDual antibiotic loaded bone cementPeriprosthetic joint infectionSurgical site infection

Identifiers

PMID39048851
PMCPMC11269536

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.