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Register in Sweden, Canada and Finland, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other ongoing or unpublished relevant studies were not included in the article.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

Value of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Routine Knee Arthroscopy

Antibiotics Prophylaxis Practice in Arthroplasty Surgeries

The prophylactic antibiotics application in 890 cases of total hip arthroplasy

Clinical study of prophylactic use of antibiotics for vascular interventional surgery

Antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical wound infections in clean and clean-contaminated surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

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

Efficacy and safety profile of antibiotic prophylaxis usage in clean and clean-contaminated plastic and reconstructive surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Safety and Efficacy of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

The Use of Postoperative Antibiotics in Shoulder Arthroscopy Patients

Efficacy of Antibiotic-Impregnated Cement in Total Hip Replacement

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

Is Antibiotic Prophylaxis Generally Safe and Effective in Surgical and Nonsurgical Scenarios? Evidence from an Umbrella Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

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

Efficacy and Safety Profile of Antibiotic Prophylaxis Usage in Clean and Clean-Contaminated Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Perioperative Antibiotic Research of 1380 Cases of Ⅰ,Ⅱtype Incision

Efficacy and safety of vancomycin for local application in the prevention of surgical site infection after joint arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

[An Investigation Analysis of Prophylactic Application of Antibiotics in Ten Types of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery].

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

Prophylaxis of Infection in 980 Patients with Knee Arthroscopy

The application of topical antibiotics for the prevention of infections in primary joint arthroplasty. An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta‐analysis

Trial of Vancomycin and Cefazolin as Surgical Prophylaxis in Arthroplasty