The use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement does not increase antibiotic resistance after primary total joint arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: One of the preventive strategies for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Even though it is widely used, there are concerns about the development of antibacterial resistance. The aim of the study was to investigate whether using ALBC in primary TJA increases the antibiotic-resistant PJI. The hypothesis was that the regular use of ALBC does not increase the rate of resistant PJI. METHODS: Patients with confirmed PJI who had revision surgery from year 2010 to 2019 were included in this international multicenter study. The ALBC group was compared to the non-ALBC TJA group from the same time period. Medical records were used to collect clinical (age, gender, body mass index, comorbidities), TJA-related (type of operation, implant type and survival) and PJI-related (cultured microorganism, antibiogram) data. Resistance to gentamicin, clindamycin and vancomycin were recorded from the antibiograms. Multiple logistic regression model was used to identify risk factors and account for the potential confounders. RESULTS: 218 patients with PJI were included in the study: 142 with gentamicin-loaded bone cement and 76 in the non-ALBC group. The average age in the ALBC group was 71 ± 10 years and 62 ± 12 years in the comparison group (p < 0.001). Coagulase negative Staphylococci (CONS) were the most common (49%) isolated pathogens. The use of ALBC did not increase the rate of any resistant bacteria significantly (OR = 0.79 (0.42-1.48), p = 0.469). The presence of CONS was associated with higher risk of antibiotic resistance. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrates no increase in antibiotic resistance due to ALBC after primary TJA. Thus, the use of ALBC during primary TJA should not be feared in the context of antimicrobial resistance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Imaging in peri-prosthetic assessment: an orthopaedic perspective.

As imaging techniques are ever-evolving, this article aims to provide a brief overview of the various modalities including their limitations. The ability of imaging for evaluation of implant osseo-integration will be addressed and also the role of imaging in assessing septic and aseptic loosening, with a particular focus on adverse tissue reactions, will be discussed. Specific features when imaging the big joints such as shoulder, hip, knee and ankle joint will also be outlined.Overall, a lack of standardisation and validity was noted and despite the gross variety of imaging modalities, there is no technique covering all aspects required for evaluation of implant fixation and septic and aseptic loosening. Each imaging modality has a role, depending on the information required and anticipated. The choice of imaging technique should not be primarily based on medical considerations but also on availability, accessibility, expertise and costs. Plain radiographs alone have been recommended in cases of suspected peri-prosthetic joint infections, given the lack of evidence for additional imaging techniques in this context. For aseptic loosening, ultrasound and plain radiographs may serve as initial screening tools. Metal artefact reducing sequences (MARS) MRI are advancing cross-sectional imaging and are likely to promote their role in patient evaluation.We conclude that imaging is one essential part in the work-up of patients with total joint replacements, within a specific clinical context. Close teamwork between experienced radiologists and orthopaedic surgeons is required for optimal patient care. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2017;2. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160058. Originally published online at www.efortopenreviews.org.