ArticleJB & JS open access
Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement and Risk of Infection After Knee Arthroplasty in High-Risk Patients: A Register Based Meta-Analysis.
Article 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antibiotic-Releasing Porous Shell Cements.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Leveraging Clinical Registries and Electronic Health Systems to Advance Value-Based Medicine Across Specialties.The Permanente journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
37 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is debated. Some argue that ALBC might only be justified in high-risk patients. This study assessed the effectiveness of ALBC vs. plain bone cement (PBC) in reducing risk of revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in TKA patients considered to have a high risk of infection. Methods: Cohort study of primary TKAs in 11 national or regional arthroplasty registries from 2010 to 2020. The 1-year risk of revision for PJI in TKAs with ALBC vs. PBC among patients with high American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, body mass index (BMI), and/or diabetes was compared. Cumulative percent revision (1 minus Kaplan-Meier) based on 685,818 TKAs and Cox regression analyses (adjusted Hazard Rate Ratios [aHRRs]) were performed for TKAs with ALBC (reference) vs. PBC restricted to the following high-risk subgroups of patients: (1) ASA ≥3 (n = 335,612 vs. 35,997), (2) BMI ≥35 (n = 278,927 vs. 24,737), (3) ASA ≥3 and BMI ≥35 (n = 99,407 vs. 11,407), (4) diabetes (n = 38,341 vs. 21,838), and (5) ASA ≥3, BMI ≥35, and diabetes (n = 3,347 vs. 4,261). Advanced distributed meta-analyses were performed to combine all aggregate data and assess 1-year risk of revision for PJI. Results: Each registry reported a 1-year cumulative percent revision of ≤1.6% for PJI following TKAs both for ALBC and PBC in all high-risk subgroups. Similar 1-year risks of revision for PJI were found in TKAs with ALBC (reference) and PBC among patients with ASA ≥3 (aHRR: 1.09; 95% CI, 0.90-1.31); BMI ≥35 (1.06; 0.54-2.12); ASA ≥3 and BMI ≥35 (1.12; 0.83-1.50); diabetes (0.95; 0.74-1.20); and ASA ≥3, BMI ≥35, and diabetes (1.40; 0.86-2.29). Conclusions and Relevance: Similar 1-year revision risk of PJI was found for TKAs with ALBC vs. PBC in high-risk patients. Confirmation of the efficacy of ALBC in high-risk TKA patients needs to be evaluated in clinical trials. 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.