Aims

The aim of this investigation was to compare risk of infection in both cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty (HA) as well as in total hip arthroplasty (THA) following femoral neck fracture.

Aims. This study aimed to compare the effect of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) versus plain bone cement (PBC) on revision rates for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and all-cause revisions following primary elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies comparing ALBC versus PBC, reporting on revision rates for PJI or all-cause revision following primary elective THA or TKA. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO ID CRD42018107691). Results. Nine studies and one registry report were identified, enabling the inclusion of 371,977 THA and 671,246 TKA. Pooled analysis for THA demonstrated ALBC was protective against revision for PJI compared with PBC (relative risk (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.77; p < 0.001), however, no differences were seen for all-cause revision rate (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.09; p = 0.100). For TKA, there were no significant differences in revision rates for PJI or all causes between ALBC and PBC (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.45; p = 0.730, and RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02; p = 0.060, respectively). Conclusion. ALBC demonstrated a protective effect against revision for PJI compared with PBC in THA with no difference in all-cause revisions. No differences in revision rates for PJI and all-cause revision between ALBC and PBC for TKA were observed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):7–15

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement influenced the risk of revision surgery after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis. Methods. The study involved data collected by the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man between 1 September 2005 and 31 August 2017. Cox proportional hazards were used to investigate the association between use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI), with adjustments made for the year of the initial procedure, age at the time of surgery, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, head size, and body mass index (BMI). We looked also at the association between use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and the risk of revision due to aseptic loosening or osteolysis. Results. The cohort included 418,857 THAs of whom 397,896 had received antibiotic-loaded bone cement and 20,961 plain cement. After adjusting for putative confounding factors, the risk of revision for PJI was lower in those in whom antibiotic-loaded bone cement was used (hazard ration (HR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 0.98). There was also a protective effect on the risk of revision due to aseptic loosening or osteolysis, in the period of > 4.1 years after primary THA, HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45, 0.72. Conclusion. Within the limits of registry analysis, this study showed an association between the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and lower rates of revision due to PJI. The findings support the continued use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in cemented THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):997–1002

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine if the local delivery of vancomycin and tobramycin in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can achieve intra-articular concentrations exceeding the minimum inhibitory concentration thresholds for bacteria causing acute prosthetic joint infection (PJI).

Aims. Antibiotic-loaded bone cements (ALBCs) may offer early protection against the formation of bacterial biofilm after joint arthroplasty. Use in hip arthroplasty is widely accepted, but there is a lack of evidence in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of ALBC in a large population of TKA patients. Materials and Methods. Data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) of England and Wales were obtained for all primary cemented TKAs between March 2003 and July 2016. Patient, implant, and surgical variables were analyzed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the influence of ALBC on risk of revision. Body mass index (BMI) data were available in a subset of patients. Results. Of 731 214 TKAs, 15 295 (2.1%) were implanted with plain cement and 715 919 (97.9%) with ALBC. There were 13 391 revisions; 2391 were performed for infection. After adjusting for other variables, ALBC had a significantly lower risk of revision for any cause (hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.93; p < 0.001). ALBC was associated with a lower risk of revision for all aseptic causes (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.95; p < 0.001) and revisions for infection (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; p = 0.06). The results were similar when BMI was added into the model, and in a subanalysis where surgeons using only ALBC over the entire study period were excluded. Prosthesis survival at ten years for TKAs implanted with ALBC was 96.3% (95% CI 96.3 to 96.4) compared with 95.5% (95% CI 95.0 to 95.9) in those implanted with plain cement. On a population level, where 100 000 TKAs are performed annually, this difference represents 870 fewer revisions at ten years in the ALBC group. Conclusion. After adjusting for a range of variables, ALBC was associated with a significantly lower risk of revision in this registry-based study of an entire nation of primary cemented knee arthroplasties. Using ALBC does not appear to increase midterm implant failure rates. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1331–1347

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the actual cost of a cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedure.

Background. Antibiotic loaded bone cement (ALBC) is commonly used in cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) in an attempt to reduce the risk of prosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, its role versus plain cement remains controversial due to the potential risk of developing resistant organisms and potential excess costs incurred from its usage. We investigated the relationship of ALBC and plain cement in affecting outcome of revision surgery after primary THA. Methodology. We conducted a retrospective study of data collected from National Joint Registry for England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man between 1. st. September 2005 until 31. st. August 2017. A logistic regression analysis model was used to investigate the association between ALBC versus plain cement and the odds ratio (OR) for revision, adjusting for age, ASA grade, bearing surfaces, head size and cup and stem fixation. Indications for revision recorded in NJR were considered in separate models. Results. We identified 418,925 THAs where bone cements were used (22,037 plain cement; 396,888 ALBC). After adjusting for confounding factors, the risk of revision for infection was lower with ALBC (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62–0.95). There was also lower risk of revision for aseptic loosening of stem (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.39–0.72), aseptic loosening of socket (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.37– 0.58). When breaking down hips into fully cemented or hybrid fixation, the protective effect of ALBC against infection was only apparent in fully cemented (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48–0.87) when compared against hybrid fixation (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66–1.23). Discussion. Within the limits of registry analysis, this study has demonstrated an association between the use of ALBC and lower rates of revision for infection and aseptic loosening. Conclusion. This finding supports the current use of ABLC in cemented THAs

Introduction. Cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains the gold standard with survivorship above 90% at greater than 10 years postoperatively. However, with younger, heavier, more active patients undergoing TKA at an increasing rate, cementless implants have the appeal of potential for improved implant fixation longevity and decreased rates of aseptic loosening. The cementless implants are more expensive than their cemented counterparts such that implant costs may create a barrier to utilization. However, such comparisons fail to consider the unavoidable additional costs of cementing, including the cost of operating room time, cement and cementing accessories. The purpose of this study is to compare the actual cost of cemented and cementless TKA. Methods. The TKA cost calculation included the cost of operative time, implants, cement and cementing accessories. The difference in operative time between cemented and cementless TKA was determined from a previously published study of 100 TKAs performed using a cemented (55) or press fit (45) implant of the same design performed at a single institution by four fellowship trained arthroplasty surgeons. The decision to use cemented or cementless design in these patients was made based on patient bone quality intraoperatively. Operative time was compared between groups using a Student's two-tailed T-test. The cost of operating room time was based on estimates in the recent literature. The cost of cement and cementing accessories was estimated based on publically available market data. The cost of implants was estimated from institutional data for multiple companies. Results. The cost comparison between cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasty is summarized in Table 1. Mean operative time for cemented TKA was 14.3 minutes longer than for cementless TKA (94.7 + 15.2 vs. 80.4 + 15.7, p<0.01). The estimated cost of one minute of operating room time in the literature ranges from $30 to $60. For our analysis, we used an estimate of $36 per minute obtained from a recently published multi-center study. This resulted in an average operating room time cost $3406 for cemented and $2894 for cementless TKA. Antibiotic cement costs an average of $250 per bag and antibiotic-free cement costs an average of $75 per bag. Cement mixing techniques vary across surgeons. Approximately 95% use a vacuum system and 5% use a mixing bowl. The cost of vacuum systems ranges from $80 for an enclosed bowl to $125 for a vacuum system that can be directly connected to a cement gun. The cost of a plastic mixing bowl and spatula is $20. The cost of the disposables from a cement injection kit is $25. The average cost of a primary TKA implant, including femoral, tibial and polyethylene liner components, is $3530 for cemented and $4659 for cementless designs. Patellar resurfacing is not routinely used at our institution and therefore was not included in implant cost. Based on our calculations, the average cost of a cementless TKA is $7553. Using the cheapest cementing technique with 2 bags of plain cement and a manual mixing bowl with spatula, the cost of a cemented TKA $7114. Using the most expensive cementing technique with 2 bags of antibiotic cement and a cement gun compatible vacuum mixer, the cost of a cemented TKA is $7564. Conclusion. Cemented TKA remains the gold standard and still accounts for most procedures. Cementless TKA is increasing in utilization and may decrease the rate of aseptic loosening, especially in the rapidly growing young, active population undergoing TKA. Although cementless implants remain more expensive than cemented implants at most institutions, the actual overall cost of the two procedures is similar if operative time, cement and cementing accessories are considered. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

Aim. To evaluate the ability of different combinations of antibiotic loaded cement to inhibit bacteria growth and biofilm formation. Method. Cement beads were aseptically prepared using Palacos R (plain 40g PMMA cement) or Palacos R+G (40g PMMA cement containing industrially added 0.5g of gentamicin), with or without supplementary antibiotics as follows: Palacos R; Palacos R+G; Palacos R plus 1g / 2g daptomycin; Palacos R+G plus 1g / 2g of daptomycin; Palacos R plus 1g / 2g vancomcyin; and Palacos R+G plus 1g / 2g vancomycin. After production, each antibiotic loaded acrylic cement (ALAC) combination was allocated into two groups (group 1 and 2). The group 2 cement beads were initially eluted in broth at 37. o. C for 72hours then transferred to fresh broth containing a known concentration of bacteria. The group 1 samples were not eluted but directly immerse in culture broth containing bacteria. All samples were thereafter incubated at 37. o. C for 24 hours. After incubation, group 1 samples were visually assessed for bacterial growth, while for the group 2 samples, biofilm formation were quantified using ultrasonication and viable bacteria counting technique. Three proficient biofilm forming Staphylococcus epidermidis bacterial strains (1457, 1585-RA and 5179-R1) were used for all experiments and the bacteria counts were expressed as colony forming units / ml (CFU/ml). Results. In the group 1 samples, all the ALAC combinations were able to inhibit growth of all the three biofilm bacteria strains assessed except the gentamicin only samples in which biofilm growth were observed within 24hours. Meanwhile, in group 2, bacterial growth and biofilm formation by all three bacterial strains were observed on all the ALAC combinations, with the least biofilm formation being on the Palacos R+G plus 2g daptomycin combinations (mean CFU/ml: 1.04E +06) and the greatest on the gentamicin only cement (mean CFU/ml: 2.3E +07). Conclusions. Our study demonstrates that the highest antimicrobial activity of ALAC is seen in the first 24 hours. However, after 72 hours of antibiotic release, fresh bacterial exposure in fresh broth resulted in varying degrees of biofilm colonisation of all ALAC surfaces. Nonetheless, the overall biofilm formation was least on the gentamicin / daptomycin combinations and the results were statistically significant when compared to plain cement (p < 0.05, two tail t-test)

Objectives

Deep bone and joint infections (DBJI) are directly intertwined with health, demographic change towards an elderly population, and wellbeing.

The elderly human population is more prone to acquire infections, and the consequences such as pain, reduced quality of life, morbidity, absence from work and premature retirement due to disability place significant burdens on already strained healthcare systems and societal budgets.

DBJIs are less responsive to systemic antibiotics because of poor vascular perfusion in necrotic bone, large bone defects and persistent biofilm-based infection. Emerging bacterial resistance poses a major threat and new innovative treatment modalities are urgently needed to curb its current trajectory.

Implant-associated infection is a major source of morbidity in orthopaedic surgery. There has been extensive research into the development of materials that prevent biofilm formation, and hence, reduce the risk of infection. Silver nanoparticle technology is receiving much interest in the field of orthopaedics for its antimicrobial properties, and the results of studies to date are encouraging. Antimicrobial effects have been seen when silver nanoparticles are used in trauma implants, tumour prostheses, bone cement, and also when combined with hydroxyapatite coatings. Although there are promising results with in vitro and in vivo studies, the number of clinical studies remains small. Future studies will be required to explore further the possible side effects associated with silver nanoparticles, to ensure their use in an effective and biocompatible manner. Here we present a review of the current literature relating to the production of nanosilver for medical use, and its orthopaedic applications.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:582–9.

Introduction:. Deep infection after total joint arthroplasty is a devastating complication with reported incidence of 1–3% with projection to increase to 6.8% by 2030. The direct costs of revision surgery due to septic failure are estimated at over $55,000 per case. Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement (ALBC) has been proposed as a preventive measure to decrease post-operative infection rates. Its efficacy has been compared with plain bone cement (PBC) in multiple studies. There has been no study to our knowledge examining its efficacy in “high risk” patients. The purpose of this study is to compare infection rates in three cohorts of patients: (1) all patients receiving only PBC, (2) all patients receiving only ALBC, and (3) only “high risk” patients receiving ALBC. Methods:. A standard cement protocol was instituted at our hospital for primary total knee arthroplasties (pTKA). From January 2000 to 2005 all pTKAs were performed with PBC. From February 2005 to May 2010, all pTKAs were performed with ALBC. From June 2010 to March 2012, all patients received regular bone cement unless they had previous diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis, obesity, and/or diabetes mellitus. Our institutional joint registry was queried and the three cohorts' individual charts were retrospectively reviewed. Infection rates amongst cohorts were compared at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year from index surgery date utilizing two sided proportion tests. Results:. A total of 3,292 consecutive primary TKAs with full follow up were included. Overall infection rate at one year for the entire study was 0.76%. There were 1,025 patients who received PBC, 1486 ALBC, and 781 in the risk stratified cohort. The 30-day infection rates for cohorts 1, 2, 3 were .0.29%, 0.20%, and 0.13% respectively. The 6-month infection rates for cohorts 1, 2, 3 were 0.39%, 0.54% and 0.38% respectively. The 1-year infection rate for cohorts 1, 2, 3 were 0.78%, 0.61%, and 0.64% respectively. The differences in infection rates between each cohort at all three time intervals were not statistically significant. Conclusions:. Antibiotic loaded bone cement does not significantly decrease infection rates for primary total knee arthroplasty. Even risk stratified usage of ALBC for “high risk” patients may be unnecessary and add undue costs to both the patient and hospital, without any appreciable benefit

The removal of cement debris at the time of primary and revision joint replacement has been facilitated through the introduction of coloured bone cements. Up to date, few studies have evaluated the effect of methilene blue dye on physical, mechanical and pharmacological properties of cements. In this light, we evaluated the effects of adding methylene blue to bone cement with or without antibiotics (gentamicin, vancomycin or both). The addition of methylene blue to plain cement significantly decreased its mean compression (95.4±3 MPa vs 100.1±6 MPa, p = 0.03) and bending (65.2±5 MPa vs 76.6±4 MPa, p < 0.001) strengths, mean setting time (570±4 seconds vs 775±11 seconds, p = 0.01), as well as its mean elastic modulus (2744±97 MPa vs 3281±110 MPa, p < 0.001). Bending resistance decreases after the supplementation of the coloured cement with vancomycin and gentamicin (55.7±4 MPa vs 65.2±5 MPa, p < 0.001). The release of antibiotics from the bone cement was significantly decreased by the methylene blue. Indeed, the release of gentamicin alone was 385.5±26 μg in comparison to 228.2±24 μg when the methylene blue was added (p < 0.001), while the release of gentamicin in combination with vancomycin was 613±25 μg vs 498.5±70 μg (p = 0.018) when the dye was added to the same formulation. With this study we demonstrated several theoretical disadvantages of the antibiotic-loaded bone cement coloured with methylene blue, although caution should be exercised in transferring our findings to the clinical context. Based on our findings, we do not recommend methylene blue supplementation of PMMA for routine clinical use

Introduction. Infection after total hip arthroplasty is a severe complication. Controversies still exist as to the use of cemented or uncemented implants in the revision of infected THAs. Based on the data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) we have studied this topic. Material and Methods. During the period 2002–2008 45.724 primary THAs were reported to NAR. Out of these 459 were revised due to infection (1,0%). The survival of the revisions with uncemented prostheses were compared to revisions with cemented prostheses with antibiotic loaded cement and to cemented prostheses with plain cement. Only prostheses with the same fixation both in acetabulum and in femur were included in the study. Cox-estimated survival and relative revision risks were calculated with adjustments for differences among groups in gender, type of surgical procedure, type of prosthesis, and age at revision. Results. 92 (23%) of all the revisions were performed with uncemented prostheses, 286 (71%) with cemented prostheses with antibiotic loaded cement, and 25 (6%) with plain cement. Compared to uncemented prostheses and with all reasons for revision as endpoint in the Cox-analyses, prostheses fixed with antibiotic loaded cement had 3.0 (1.4–6.3) times increased risk for re-revision (p=0.004) and prostheses with plain cement 1.9 (0.4–9.3) times increased risk (p=0.44). With infection as endpoint, prostheses with antibiotic loaded cement had 2.8 (1.2–6.4) times increased risk for re-revision (p=0.02) and prostheses with plain cement 2.6 (0.5–13.7) times increased (p=0.26). 77% of the re-revisions (48 of 60) were performed due to infection. Conclusion. Data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Registry indicate that uncemented prostheses should be used in the revision of infected total arthroplasties

Antibiotic bone cement as a form of prophylaxis against deep infection for total hip joint replacements is widely used; however its efficacy has not been proven. This study aims to determine if the use of prophylactic antibiotic cement for primary total hip joint replacements in New Zealand reduces the risk of deep infection requiring revision. Data from January 1999 to December 2007 were recovered from the New Zealand National Joint Registry. Proportional hazards regression analysis was used to study the relative revision risks or failure rates between those THJR which utilised antibiotic bone cement and those using plain bone cement. Of the 32,646 hips included in the study 1376 were revised. The overall use of antibiotic and plain cement through this time period is relatively equal, with 18,863 (54.7%) receiving ABC compared to 16,295 (46.3%) hips receiving plain cement. The presence of antibiotics in bone cement was not found to affect whether the hip went on to get revised for deep infection (p =0.16). Nor was the type of operating theatre (p=0.13), the use of space suits (p=0.97), and the operative time (p=0.55). Younger age was found to be the most significant indicator for the need for revision for infection (p value 0.00014). The induction of antibiotic resistance and the significant additional costs associated with antibiotic bone cement cannot be denied. While the literature supports the prophylactic use of antibiotic bone cement for patients at high risk of infection, the routine use in patients who have a low risk of infection may not be justified

Coloured bone cements have been introduced to make the removal of cement debris easier at the time of primary and revision joint replacement. We evaluated the physical, mechanical and pharmacological effects of adding methylene blue to bone cement with or without antibiotics (gentamicin, vancomycin or both). The addition of methylene blue to plain cement significantly decreased its mean setting time (570 seconds (. sd. 4) vs 775 seconds (. sd. 11), p = 0.01), mean compression strength (95.4 MPa (. sd. 3) vs 100.1 MPa (. sd.  6), p = 0.03), and mean bending strength (65.2 MPa (. sd. 5) vs 76.6 MPa (. sd. 4), p < 0.001) as well as its mean elastic modulus (2744 MPa (. sd. 97) vs 3281 MPa (. sd. 110), p < 0.001). The supplementation of the coloured cement with vancomycin and gentamicin decreased its mean bending resistance (55.7 MPa (. sd. 4) vs 65.2 MPa (. sd . 5), p < 0.001).The methylene blue significantly decreased the mean release of gentamicin alone (228.2 µg (. sd. 24) vs 385.5 µg (. sd . 26), p < 0.001) or in combination with vancomycin (498.5 µg (. sd. 70) vs 613 µg (. sd. 25), p = 0.018) from the bone cement. This study demonstrates several theoretical disadvantages of the antibiotic-loaded bone cement coloured with methylene blue

Purpose: Prophylactic use of antibiotic-laden bone cement (ALBC) has been proposed to decrease the incidence of deep infections. We asked if the use of antibiotic laden bone cement decreased the deep infection rate following primary total knee replacement (TKA) as compared to plain bone cement (PBC). Method: We surveyed 1,625 consecutive patients undergoing cemented, primary knee replacement with either ALBC or PBC. Relevant covariates including age, body mass index (BMI), gender, education, and medical comorbidity were collected. Joint pain and functional status were assessed at baseline and at 1 year follow up with the respective Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores. The incidence of deep infection at 1 year follow up was recorded. Results: There were 811 (49.9%) patients in the ALBC group and 814(50.1%) in the PBC group. There were no differences in age, gender, BMI, education or comorbidity between groups at baseline (p> 0.05). We found a deep infection rate of 3.1% in the ALBC group and 2.2% in the PBC group (p=0.27). Adjusted analysis showed that ALBC was not predictive of a lower infection rate at 1 year (p=0.84). Conclusion: ALBC did not reduce the incidence of deep infection following primary TKA at 1 year follow up. Further studies are needed to define any high risk groups for which ALBC might be beneficial

Of the 11 054 Charnley low-frictional torque arthroplasties carried out at our hospital between 1962 and 1977, 110 (94 patients) had a minimum follow-up of 30 years with a mean of 32.3 years (30.0 to 40.5). The mean age of the patients at operation was 43.3 years (17.0 to 65.0) and 75.7 years (51.0 to 97.0) at follow-up. Overall, 90% of hips (99) were free from pain and activity was reported as normal in 58% of the patients.

A total of 13 hips (11.8%) were revised at a mean follow-up of 32.3 years (30.0 to 39.5), with wear and loosening of the acetabular component as the main indications.

The clinical results did not reflect the mechanical state of the implant. Follow-up with sequential radiographs of good quality is essential. Revision for radiological changes alone must be accepted if gross loss of bone stock is to be avoided.

Improvements in the design, materials and operative technique, based on the long-term outcome, are highlighted.

Introduction: There is extensive literature on the effect of vancomycin on the compression strength of plain cements, none however on antibiotic-loaded cements. The addition of vancomycin to antibiotic-loaded bone cement is common practice in revision joint replacement surgery for infection. The scope of this study was to record the effect of vancomycin addition on the compression strength of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and to compare the results with the international standard (ISO 5833–2) in order to evaluate safety in clinical use. Materials & Methods: The formulations used were Palamed G, containing 0.55g of gentamicin; and Copal, containing 1g of gentamicin and 1g of clindamicin. Vancomycin concentrations of 2.5%, 5% and 10% per powder weight were added. The ISO requirements for the testing procedures were followed. Samples of Palamed G with 5% vancomycin and non-standardised mixing procedures were also tested, as well as samples of both bone cements without vancomycin, as controls. Results: The mean compression strength of plain Palamed G was 91.08 MPa. With the addition of 2.5%, 5% and 10% vancomycin, the mean compression strengths were 79.82, 82.3 and 74.56 MPa respectively, a reduction of 12.36%, 9.64% and 18.13%. The mean strength of the Palamed G specimens with 5% vancomycin and non-standardised mixing was 72.88 MPa, a 19.9% reduction. The mean compression strength of the plain Copal was 86.27 MPa. With the addition of 2.5%, 5% and 10% vancomycin, the mean compression strengths were 76.59, 78.92 and 71.19 MPa respectively, a reduction of 11.22%, 8.52% and 17.48%. Copal with 10% and Palamed G with 5% vancomycin and non-standardised mixing, were the only cements with compression strengths not significantly exceeding the ISO standard of 70 MPa. Conclusion: The addition of up to 5% vancomycin per powder weight to the antibiotic-loaded Copal and 10% to Palamed G bone cements can be considered safe. Care should be given to the mixing procedure of the cement, as it significantly affects its compression strength