DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12091368 ISSN:

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

Benedikt Paul Blersch, Michael Barthels, Philipp Schuster, Bernd Fink
  • Pharmacology (medical)
  • Infectious Diseases
  • Microbiology (medical)
  • General Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
  • Biochemistry
  • Microbiology

Aim: The incidence of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) following aseptic knee revision arthroplasty lies between 3% and 7.5%. The aim of this study was to verify the hypothesis that the use of dual-antibiotic-impregnated cement in knee revision arthroplasty leads to a lower rate of periprosthetic joint infections. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 403 aseptic revision knee arthroplasties performed between January 2013 and March 2021 (148 revisions of a unicompartmental prosthesis, 188 revisions of a bicondylar total knee arthroplasty (TKA), 41 revisions of an axis-guided prosthesis, and 26 revisions of only one component of a surface replacement prosthesis). The bone cement Copal G+C (Heraeus Medical, Wertheim, Germany) with two antibiotics—gentamycin and clindamycin—was used for the fixation of the new implant. The follow-up period was 53.4 ± 27.9 (4.0–115.0) months. Results: Five patients suffered from PJI within follow-up (1.2%). The revision rate for any reason was 8.7%. Survival for any reason was significantly different between the types of revision (p = 0.026, Log-Rank-test), with lower survival rates after more complex surgical procedures. The 5-year survival rate with regard to revision for any reason was 91.3% [88.2–94.4%] and with regard to revision for PJI 98.2% [98.7–99.9%], respectively. Conclusion: The use of the dual-antibiotic-impregnated bone cement Copal G+C results in a lower rate of periprosthetic infections after aseptic knee prosthesis replacement than that reported in published prosthesis revisions using only one antibiotic in the bone cement.

More from our Archive