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Register in Sweden, Canada and Finland, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other ongoing or unpublished relevant studies were not included in the article.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 Multiantibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement on the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infections of Hip and Knee Arthroplasties—A Single-Center Retrospective Study

A Low Rate of Periprosthetic Infections after Aseptic Knee Prosthesis Revision Using Dual-Antibiotic-Impregnated Bone Cement

The Prophylactic Effect of Single vs. Dual Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement against Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Hip Arthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture: An Analysis of the German Arthroplasty Registry

Efficacy of Antibiotic-Impregnated Cement in Total Hip Replacement

Do High Doses of Multiple Antibiotics Loaded into Bone Cement Spacers Improve the Success Rate in Staphylococcal Periprosthetic Joint Infection When Rifampicin Cannot Be Employed?

Enhanced antibiotic release from bone cement spacers utilizing dual antibiotic loading with elevated vancomycin concentrations in two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection

The Impact of Antimicrobial Therapy Duration in the Treatment of Prosthetic Joint Infections Depending on Surgical Strategies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Medium and long term outcomes of treatment using cement-on-cement antibiotic-loaded articulating spacers for knee prosthetic infection

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

Sonication of antibiotic-loaded cement spacers in a two-stage revision protocol for infected joint arthroplasty

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

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

Functional Outcome after Reimplantation in Patients Treated with and without an Antibiotic-Loaded Cement Spacers for Hip Prosthetic Joint Infections

Vancomycin and Ceftazidime in Bone Cement as a Potentially Effective Treatment for Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infection

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

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

Double-layered antibiotic-loaded cement spacer as a novel alternative for managing periprosthetic joint infection: an in vitro study

What Is the Role of Local Antimicrobial Protection for One-Stage Revision for Peri-Prosthetic Hip Infection?

Periprosthetic Joint Infection After TKA With or Without Antibiotic Bone Cement

The role of acetabular cement augmentation in 2-stage revision arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection of the hip

Low prevalence of tissue detection of cefepime and daptomycin used as empirical treatment during revision for periprosthetic joint infections: results of a prospective multicenter study