Abstract:Copyright © Taylor & Francis 2008. ISSN 1745–3674. Printed in Sweden – all rights reserved. DOI 10.1080/17453670810016984 Sir—We have read with interest the systematic review on routine use of antibiotic-loaded cement in primary cemented hip arthroplasty by Dr. Parvizi et al. (2008), and would like to bring three issues to your attention. Two randomized controlled trials (RCT, Pfarr and Burri 1979, Wannske and Tscherne 1979), six comparative cohort studies (Buchholz and Engelbrecht 1970, Buchholz and Gartmann 1972, Buchholz et al. 1977, 1984, Thierse 1978, Persson et al. 1999), the data of the Arthroplasty Register in Sweden, Canada and Finland, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other ongoing or unpublished relevant studies were not included in the article. In addition, McQueen et al. (1990) had published a follow-up report of their previous RCT (McQueen et al. 1987) with an expanded number of procedures; Engesaeter et al. (2003) had updated their previous observational study (Espehaug et al. 1997) in the recent publication. If they only searched Medline, the authors would possibly miss 20%–70% of published RCTs (Dickersin 1994). All the above caused the selection bias which may overestimate the effectiveness of antibiotic cement. Second, we wish to offer alternative views on several questionable points in the analysis. (i) As two sequential studies by Josefsson et al. (1990, 1993) shared the same patient group, the former should have been excluded. (ii) In the subgroup of McQueen et al. (1987), the 26 knee arthroplasties and 1 infected knee should have been excluded from 295 total joint arthroplasties and 3 infected joints, respectively. (iii) The reference by Lieberman was not indicated. (iv) In the report by Lynch et al. (1987), the infection rate of the plain cement group without previous hip surgery was 11/640. The authors had not given details about the calculation of 11/651. (v) Neither the results of the assessment of study quality nor the results of the test for homogeneity were noted. Finally, although the methodology for meta-analysis of non-randomized studies were immature yet, the paucity and the low Jadad score (never exceed 2) of the 4 RCTs forced the authors to include nonrandomized studies. They tend to overestimate the effectiveness of the antibiotic cement (Schulz et al. 1995). Also, the trials were substantially different in their design; e.g. the data comparing antibiotic cement with no prophylaxis were combined with those comparing antibiotic cement with intravenous antibiotic, which might again exaggerate the effectiveness of antibiotic cement. Thus, subgroup or metaregression analysis may be preferable for the heterogeneity. While we understand the challenges inherent in performing this meta-analysis as the authors recognized, the above-mentioned drawbacks made it premature for any definite conclusion to be drawn, until a strictly-designed, multi-centered, large-sampled RCT is performed. Considering the dramatically lower preventive effect for the normal population than for the highrisk population (Jiranek et al. 2006) and the potential disadvantages associated with prophylactic antibiotic cement (Jiranek et al. 2006, Yan et al. 2007), it is difficult to accept the conclusion of the routine use of antibiotic cement based on the present evidence.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis is Often Unnecessary for Screening Colonoscopies Following Total Knee Arthroplasty

Antibiotic Prophylaxis Prior to Dental Procedures After Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Does Not Decrease the Risk of Periprosthetic Joint Infection

Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Patients Undergoing Perioperative Colonoscopy

Knee Arthroscopy Following Total Knee Arthroplasty is not Associated with an Elevated Risk of Infection

Oral Postoperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Outpatient Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: Describing Current Practices

Extended Prophylactic Antibiotics for Primary and Aseptic Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis

Efficacy of Antibiotic-Impregnated Cement in Total Hip Replacement

Routine Prescription of Proton Pump Inhibitors in the Perioperative Period is Associated with Decreased Rates of 2-Year Revision Surgery after Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

Antibiotic prophylaxis for urinary catheter manipulation following arthroplasty: a systematic review

Staphylococcus aureus Decolonization as a Mandatory Procedure in Preoperative Knee and Hip Replacement Care—Insights from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of More Than 50,000 Patients

Increasing Utilization of Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis Following Total Knee Arthroplasty from 2010 to 2022

Incidence, Microbiological Studies, and Factors Associated With Prosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty

Value of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Routine Knee Arthroscopy

Infectiological Outcome of Total Hip and Total Knee Arthroplasty in Post-Traumatic and Primary Osteoarthritis

Should All Patients Receive Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis? Defining its Role in Patients Undergoing Primary and Aseptic Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty

Microbiological Differences Among Age Groups in Patients Diagnosed With Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Database Analysis of 2,392 Patients

Antibiotic-loaded bone cement reduces risk of infections in primary total knee arthroplasty? A systematic review

Withholding Preoperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Knee Prosthesis Revision: A Retrospective Analysis on Culture Results and Risk of Infection

Antibiotics Prophylaxis Practice in Arthroplasty Surgeries

The Use of Postoperative Antibiotics in Shoulder Arthroscopy Patients

Intraosseous regional prophylactic antibiotics decrease the risk of infection in total knee arthroplasty compared with intravenous antibiotics: a systematic review and meta-analysis