Biofilm-related infection is a major complication that occurs in orthopaedic surgery. Various treatments are available but efficacy to eradicate infections varies significantly. A systematic review was performed to evaluate therapeutic interventions combating biofilm-related infections on in vivo animal models. Literature research was performed on PubMed and Embase databases. Keywords used for search criteria were “bone AND biofilm”. Information on the species of the animal model, bacterial strain, evaluation of biofilm and bone infection, complications, key findings on observations, prevention, and treatment of biofilm were extracted.Aims
Methods
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). 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).Aims
Methods
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication
of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Different bearing surface materials
have different surface properties and it has been suggested that
the choice of bearing surface may influence the risk of PJI after
THA. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the rate
of PJI between metal-on-polyethylene (MoP), ceramic-on-polyethylene
(CoP), and ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings. Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, Web
of Science, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature)
were searched for comparative randomized and observational studies
that reported the incidence of PJI for different bearing surfaces.
Two investigators independently reviewed studies for eligibility, evaluated
risk of bias, and performed data extraction. Meta-analysis was performed
using the Mantel–Haenzel method and random-effects model in accordance
with methods of the Cochrane group.Aims
Patients and Methods
