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Register in Sweden, Canada and Finland, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other ongoing or unpublished relevant studies were not included in the article.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

Effect of vancomycin-impregnated calcium phosphate cement in two-stage revision for management of infection after hip arthroplasty

Vancomycin release of vancomycin-calcium sulfate and vancomycin polymethylmethacrylate in animal study

Treatment of Infection after Hip Arthroplasty Using Antibiotic-Impregnated Cement Spacer by Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty

Effect of Vancomycin Complex Antibiotic Cement Implantation in the Treatment of Postoperative Infection in Orthopedics

Management of the infected total hip or knee arthroplasty with two-staged revisions

High active local levels of vancomycin without nephrotoxicity released from impacted bone allografts in 20 revision hip arthroplasties

In Vitro and in Vivo Evaluation of Vancomycin-Loaded PMMA Cement in Combination with Ultrasound and Microbubbles-Mediated Ultrasound

High and Low Dosage of Vancomycin in Polymethylmethacrylate Cements: Efficacy and Mechanical Properties

Efficacy of Antibiotic-Impregnated Cement in Total Hip Replacement

Effect of Low-Frequency Pulsed Ultrasound on Drug Delivery, Antibacterial Efficacy, and Bone Cement Degradation in Vancomycin-Loaded Calcium Phosphate Cement

Assessing the Character of the Rhbmp-2- and Vancomycin-Loaded Calcium Sulphate Composites in Vitro and in Vivo.

Effect of Multiantibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement on the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infections of Hip and Knee Arthroplasties—A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Application of antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacer in second-stage revision for infected total hip arthroplasty

Continuous Wave Ultrasound Enhances Vancomycin Release and Antimicrobial Efficacy of Antibiotic-Loaded Acrylic Bone Cement in Vitro and in Vivo

Impact of implant metal type and vancomycin prophylaxis on postoperative spine infection: an in-vivo study

[Cementless Two-Staged Total Hip Arthroplasty for Chronic Periprosthetic Infection].

Effect of Delayed Pulsed-Wave Ultrasound on Local Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Vancomycin-Loaded Acrylic Bone Cement in Vivo

Antibiotic calcium sulphate beads lower the bacterial burden and prevent infection in a mouse model of periprosthetic joint infection

Application of antibiotic-loaded bone cements in primary hip arthroplasty

Clinical progress of cemented prosthesis as spacer inserted in two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection following total hip arthroplasty

Synthesis and evaluation of a novel vancomycin-infused, biomimetic bone graft using a rat model of spinal implant-associated infection