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Register in Sweden, Canada and Finland, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other ongoing or unpublished relevant studies were not included in the article.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 Antibiotic Therapy Before Arthrocentesis on Synovial Fluid Cell Count and Differential for Diagnosis of Native Joint Septic Arthritis

Effect of Antibiotic Administration Before Joint Aspiration on Synovial Fluid White Blood Cell Count in Native Joint Septic Arthritis

Effect of Preoperative Antibiotic Therapy on Operative Culture Yield for Diagnosis of Native Joint Septic Arthritis

Arthrocentesis of suspected septic sternoclavicular arthritis: microbial yield and predictors of culture positivity

Arthroscopic Debridement Enhanced by Intra-Articular Antibiotic-Loaded Calcium Sulphate Beads for Septic Arthritis of a Native Knee Following Iatrogenic Joint Injection: A Case Report

The Effect of Crystal Arthropathy on the Diagnostic Criteria of Native Septic Arthritis

Efficacy of Antibiotic-Impregnated Cement in Total Hip Replacement

Dynamics of Synovial Fluid Markers Following Single-Stage Exchange and Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention Procedure with Topical Antibiotic Infusion in Treating Periprosthetic Joint Infection

Antibiotics Prophylaxis Practice in Arthroplasty Surgeries

Arthroscopy or arthrotomy for native knee septic arthritis: A systematic review

Review of Intra-Articular Use of Antibiotics and Antiseptic Irrigation and Their Systematic Association with Chondrolysis

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

Septic Arthritis of Native Shoulder and Knee Joint: What Are the Differences in Bacterial Spectrum, Treatment, and Outcome?

The Use of Postoperative Antibiotics in Shoulder Arthroscopy Patients

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

Irrigation and debridement for knee osteoarthritis patients with suspected infection by intra-articular injection before total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study

Higher cefazolin concentrations in synovial fluid with intraosseous regional prophylaxis in knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial

Microbiological Profile and Clinical Features of Septic Arthritis of the Shoulder: A 10-Year Cohort Single-Centre Study

Comparison of Arthroscopy versus Open Arthrotomy for Treatment of Septic Arthritis of the Native Knee: Analysis of 90-Day Postoperative Complications

Evaluation Of White Cell Count And Differential In Synovial Fluid For Diagnosing Infections After Total Hip Or Knee Arthroplasty

The accuracy and diagnostic value of gram staining joint aspirates in suspected joint infections