ReviewJB & JS open access
Number of Doses of Systemic Antibiotic Prophylaxis May Be Reduced in Cemented Primary Knee Arthroplasty Irrespective of Use of Antibiotic in the Cement: A Multiregistry-Based Meta-Analysis.
Review in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing serious adverse events after primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Pooled it
- Leveraging Clinical Registries and Electronic Health Systems to Advance Value-Based Medicine Across Specialties.The Permanente journal · 2026Review
- Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement and Risk of Infection After Knee Arthroplasty in High-Risk Patients: A Register Based Meta-Analysis.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) and antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) is the accepted practice to reduce the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in primary total knee arthroplasty (pTKA). However, practice varies internationally. This study's primary aim was to compare the risk of PJI revision after pTKA with ALBC + SAP vs. plain bone cement (PBC) + SAP, and the secondary aim was to assess whether the risk of PJI revision varies with the number of SAP doses. Methods: Cohort of 289,926 pTKAs for osteoarthritis from arthroplasty registries in Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, and United States registered from 2010 to 2020. One-year revision for PJI following pTKA with ALBC + SAP vs. PBC + SAP, and single vs. multiple SAP doses was compared. We computed cumulative percent revision (1 minus Kaplan-Meier) using distributed analysis method and adjusted hazard rate ratios (HRRs) using Cox regression analyses within each registry. Advanced distributed meta-analysis was performed to summarize HRRs from all countries. Results: Among all pTKAs, 64.4% were performed with ALBC + SAP. Each registry reported a 1-year cumulative percent revision for PJI of <1.00% for both pTKAs with ALBC + SAP (0.34%-0.80%) and with PBC + SAP (0.54%-0.69%). The distributed meta-analysis showed HRR = 1.21; (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.87) for ALBC + SAP compared with PBC + SAP. Similar risk of PJI revision was observed between pTKAs with ALBC + single vs. multiple doses of SAP: 2 doses (0.95; 95% CI, 0.68-1.33), 3 doses (1.09; 95% CI, 0.64-1.87), and 4 doses (1.23; 95% CI, 0.69-2.21). Comparable results were found for the PBC + SAP group except for higher risk of PJI revision with 4 doses of SAP (2.74; 95% CI, 1.11-6.75). Conclusions: ALBC and PBC entailed similar risk of PJI revision when patients received SAP in pTKA, regardless of number of SAP doses. ALBC or PBC used in combination with SAP in pTKAs, with one single preoperative dose of SAP may be sufficient without compromising the patient safety. Level of evidence: Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.