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Register in Sweden, Canada and Finland, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other ongoing or unpublished relevant studies were not included in the article.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.

A Case of Severe Acute Kidney Injury Due to an Antibiotic-Loaded Cement Spacer for Infected Knee Arthroplasty

Incidence, associated factors, and outcomes of acute kidney injury following placement of antibiotic bone cement spacers in two-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection: a comprehensive study

Systemic Absorption Resulting from Tobramycin-Loaded Antibiotic Cement Spacers Used in the Treatment of Prosthetic Joint Infection

Two-stage approach to total knee arthroplasty using colistin-loaded articulating cement spacer for vancomycin-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in an arthritic knee

Acute kidney injury following prophylactic flucloxacillin and gentamicin in primary hip and knee arthroplasty

Staged revision of the infected knee arthroplasty and endoprosthesis

Addition of Vancomycin to Cefazolin Prophylaxis Is Associated With Acute Kidney Injury After Primary Joint Arthroplasty

In Vivo Intra-Articular Antibiotic Concentrations at 24 Hours After TKA Fall Below the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration for Most Bacteria: A Randomized Study of Commercially Available Bone Cement

Selecting a high-dose antibiotic-laden cement knee spacer

Elution of antibiotics from poly(methyl methacrylate) bone cement after extended implantation does not necessarily clear the infection despite susceptibility of the clinical isolates

In Vivo Intra-Articular Antibiotic Concentrations at 24 Hours After TKA Fall Below the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration for Most Bacteria

Complications of Antibiotic Cement Spacers Used for Elbow Infections

Efficacy of Antibiotic-Impregnated Cement in Total Hip Replacement

Antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer as definitive management for osteomyelitis

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

Intra-articular administration of vancomycin and tobramycin during primary cementless total knee arthroplasty : determination of intra-articular and serum elution profiles

Complications associated with 133 static, antibiotic-laden spacers after TKA

Does the use of a closed-suction drain reduce the effectiveness of an antibiotic-loaded spacer in two-stage exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic hip infection? A prospective, randomized, controlled study

Periprosthetic Joint Infection After TKA With or Without Antibiotic Bone Cement

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

Revisiting Antibiotic-Impregnated Cement Spacer for Diabetic Osteomyelitis of the Foot