Abstract
Aim
Aim was to compare revision rates when using single versus dual antibiotic loaded cement (ABLC) in hip fracture arthroplasty and aseptic revision hip or knee arthroplasty using data from the Dutch national joint registry (LROI).
Methods
All primary cemented (hemi-)arthroplasties for acute hip fractures and cemented aseptic hip or knee revision arthroplasties, were incorporated in 3 datasets. All registered implants between 2007 and 2018 were included (minimum 2 years follow-up). Primary end-point was subsequent revision rates for infection and for any reason in the single and dual ABLC groups.
Cumulative crude incidence of revision was calculated using competing risk analysis.
Results
A total of 22,308 hip fracture arthroplasties, 2,529 hip revision and 7,124 knee revision arthroplasties were registered and analyzed in the study period. The majority of hip fracture patients (97.1%) was treated with single ABLC. For hip and knee revision arthroplasties dual ABLC was used in 33.8% and 25.7%.
The revision rate for infection in the fracture arthroplasty group was not different between groups (0.5% versus 0.8%, p=0.27). The re-revision rate following hip or knee revision based on single versus dual ABLC was not different between groups (3.2% versus 2.8%, p=0.82 for hip revision and 1.8% versus 2.5%, p=0.36 for knee revision). In addition, the re-revision rate for any reason was not different in all three datasets.
The crude cumulative revision and re-revision rates for any reason based on single ABLC versus dual ABLC showed no differences in all three datasets.
The crude cumulative 7-year re-revision rate for any reason following revision THA with Gentamicin ABLC use was 11.8%, with Gentamicin + Clindamycin ABLC use 13.1% and with Erythromycin + Colistin ABLC use 14.8% (ns). The crude cumulative 9-year re-revision rate for any reason following revision TKA with Gentamicin ABLC use was 17.7% and with Gentamicin + Clindamycin ABLC use 16.5% (ns).
Conclusions
In conclusion, we could not show a difference in revision rate for hip fracture arthroplasty or re-revision rates for revision hip- or knee arthroplasty with the use of dual ABLC compared to single ABLC bone cement, with 7and 9 year follow up. The low percentage of dual ABLC in hip fracture arthroplasties in our registry do not enable us to make a reliable estimation of the added value in this patient category.
The results of this study do not confirm the potential benefit of dual ABLC use in revision cases
