Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 + 1696 word(s) 1696 2021-07-23 05:55:20 |
2 format correct Meta information modification 1696 2021-07-23 09:34:38 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Iannotti, F. Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 25 June 2024).
Iannotti F. Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed June 25, 2024.
Iannotti, Ferdinando. "Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infection" Encyclopedia, (accessed June 25, 2024).
Iannotti, F. (2021, July 23). Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infection. In Encyclopedia.
Iannotti, Ferdinando. "Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infection." Encyclopedia. Web. 23 July, 2021.
Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infection

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) represent one of the worst complications following total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in general, and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in particular. The clinical impact on patients is dramatic: the 5-year mortality rate following PJI equals the one of oncologic patients. On the other side, hospital readmission rates following explants already double those of many cardiac and oncologic procedures, leading to a significant burden on healthcare systems. At current times, the combination of increasing antibiotic resistance and the growth in the number of culture-negative PJI makes preventing infection a key aspect of adult reconstruction practices in order to avoid an epidemic escalation of PJI and musculoskeletal infections in general.

TKA PJI periprosthetic joint infections knee hip infection prevention

1. Introduction

Unfortunately, effective prevention strategies to reduce the burden of this complication have not been fully determined. Decisions on patient selection and evaluation criteria, comorbidity detection, quantification of the perioperative risk, and application of countermeasures are often left on the shoulders of the treating physician, and not many standardized protocols for the prevention of PJI have been established [1].
This study aimed to review the current literature and multiple recommendations from well-recognized international scientific societies on preventive PJI measures with the objective to produce a clear, innovative, multimodal, perioperative protocol for TKA PJI prevention in high-risk patients. To achieve this goal, the European Knee Associates (EKA) formed a transatlantic panel of experts with a special interest in PJI and PJI prevention: the current authors first analyzed multiple modifiable patient-related and perioperative PJI risk factors, and secondarily produced guidelines for each of the three phases (preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative) of the TKA procedure. The protocol presented here, despite representing the opinion of several EKA members, does not represent a consensus document from EKA.

2. Preoperative Factors Increasing PJI Risk

2.1. Obesity

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons’ (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines [2] defined obesity as a moderate-strength criteria for increased risk. It has been described that patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 35 or greater have a two- to six-fold increased risk of PJI [3][4]. Consensus opinion from the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) suggests that consideration should be given to delaying total joint arthroplasty in a patient with a BMI > 40, especially when associated with other comorbidities, such as poorly controlled diabetes or malnutrition [5].

2.2. Malnutrition

Since paradoxical malnutrition in patients having a high caloric but nutritionally poor diet is present in 42.9% of obese patients [6], malnutrition has been associated with a five to seven times greater risk of developing a major wound complication [7], ultimately leading to a PJI. Therefore, to cope with postoperative catabolic demands, nutritional supplementation has been strongly recommended to minimize PJI risk [8].

2.3. Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetes is a well-known risk factor for complications following TJA [9]. Historically, patients with uncontrolled diabetes have been found to have a 2.8 times increased risk of infection after TJA [10][11]. More recently, the critical role of acute glycemic control in patients undergoing TJA has been determined since multiple studies have shown patients with peri-operative hyperglycemia, not simply diabetes alone, have a significantly higher risk for complications [12][13]. Blood glucose levels between 110 and 180 mg/dL, a non-fasting glucose value less than 200 mg/dL, and a hemoglobin A1c value less than 7.5–8% have all been reported as ideal for elective TKA [11][12][13].

2.4. Smoking

Tobacco use and smoking are substantial risk factors for poor wound healing and infection. There is strong evidence that previous smokers had a similar risk profile to non-smokers: a few reports indicated that four weeks of cessation are required before elective surgery to attenuate the risk of surgical complications [14][15]. The normal value of serum cotinine assay has been reported as ≤ 10 ng/dl [16].

2.5. Skin Decolonization Prior to Surgery

Recent studies suggest the use of preoperative chlorhexidine cloth skin decolonization to reduce PJI after TJA because of its superiority compared to regular soap for preoperative cleansing of the skin—this has been demonstrated particularly in reducing infections related to MRSA [17][18]. The use of octenidine-palmitate (OL 11) has also been shown to reduce SSIs [19].

2.6. Nasal Decolonization

Since S. aureus nasal colonization correlates with increased risk for surgical site infections (SSIs) [20] and a few reports showed that an institutional decolonization protocol helped to decrease overall infection rate [21], the AAOS workgroup [2] suggested preoperative nasal mupirocin decolonization in all patients who are MRSA carriers because of its minimal potential risk of nasal irritation and its relatively low cost.

3. Intraoperative and Perioperative Factors Increasing PJI Risk

3.1. Surgical Site Hair Removal

Kowalski et al. [22] recommended that hair removal should be considered in all patients undergoing elective joint arthroplasty, and should be performed by clippers before arrival in the operating room.

3.2. Perioperative Antibiotics

Since the increasing number of MRSA and gram-negative PJIs [23], the classical single antibiotic prophylaxis prior to TJA has been recently challenged [24]. On the other side, Sewick et al. [25] demonstrated that the addition of vancomycin did not significantly reduce the rate of SSI when compared with cefazolin alone, but reduced the overall incidence of MRSA infections; because of this, it has been suggested by the same authors that only patients who are proven or potential carriers of MRSA, or those with a cephalosporin allergy, may benefit from vancomycin prophylaxis. This therapeutic strategy has also been shown to minimize the development of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus [24][25].

3.3. Perioperative Antibiotics Timing

Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines recommend a single preoperative dose in the case of TJA, there is a surprisingly limited amount of literature to support this recommendation [26][27]. It has been shown that a single perioperative dose of antibiotics does not increase the SSI/PJI rates if compared to multiple doses [26]. Interestingly, Inabathula et al. [28] reported that extended postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis up to seven days led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful reduction in the 90-day infection rate in a selected group of high-risk patients. Claret et al. [29] also demonstrated a reduction in PJI when a prolonged post-operative antibiotic treatment was applied to total joint arthroplasty revisions.

3.4. Surgical Site Skin Decolonization

Chlorhexidine-gluconate (CHG) has been recommended as the most efficient intra-operative surgical site preparation agent [8]; dual skin preparation, before and after draping and adding alcohol in a secondary scrubbing phase, has also shown favorable outcomes [18][30] as a preventive PJI measure.

3.5. Intraarticular Irrigation

Various intraoperative irrigation solutions have been recently studied. The World Health Organization (WHO), CDC, and International Consensus Meeting Clinical Practice Guidelines advocate for the use of diluted povidone-iodine (PID) irrigation during surgical procedures [27][31][32]; interestingly, cytotoxicity studies have shown that the bactericidal effect occurs even before individual human cells are affected [33]. Multiple studies have been performed in order to determine the optimal PID dilution in normal saline [34][35][36] prior to irrigation. Cichos et al. [36] evaluated the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and time to bacterial death for 1% PID, 0.05% CHG, and 5 μg/mL vancomycin against multiple bacteria: those authors reported that PID, with a MIC of 0.63%, killed all tested micro-organisms immediately after contact, concluding that PID-accurate intra-articular diffusion was more important than extended exposure time. A recent in vitro study by Schmidt et al. [37] suggested that chlorhexidine may be a more effective irrigation solution for S. epidermidis eradication in biofilm than other commonly used solutions, such as povidone-iodine, Dakin’s solution, and triple antibiotic solution.

3.6. Fibrinolytic Agents

Since postoperative hematoma represents a well-known risk factor for PJI and SSI, the use of tranexamic acid (TXA) was recently introduced in many multimodal TKA protocols, since its use was strongly associated with reduced blood loss and decreased transfusion rates without an increase in thromboembolic complications [38].

3.7. Wound Closure

It has been reported that prolonged wound drainage (> 5 days) increases the risk of PJI by 13 times [39]: because of this, proper wound closing and postoperative wound monitoring represent key factors to avoid bacteria invading the joint space [39]. Recently, the use of a barbed monofilament suture was shown to provide a more watertight seal requiring no knots and allow for quick and cosmetic wound closure [40][41]. Interestingly, results from several meta-analysis studies showed that the incidence of SSI or wound infections decreased after using triclosan-coated sutures [42][43]. Since a moist environment protects the incision area from contamination, the use of silver-impregnated hydrofiber dressings have shown to decrease wound complications, the number of required re-dressings, and the rate of PJI by 4.6-fold [44][45]. In high-risk patients, wound checks and possible dressing changes should be performed on a daily basis—in the case of postoperative drainage, vacuum-assisted incisional dressing (iVAC) or negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) may play a role in reducing PJI risk [46].

3.8. Implant Surfaces

Since bacterial adhesion to the implant surface represents a key step of biofilm formation, several studies have focused on the relationship between prosthetic biomaterials and the increased risk of PJI [47][48][49]. Material and surface engineering led to the development of bactericidal/bacteriostatic modification of implant surfaces, such as chemical immobilization of antimicrobials, coatings with a broad range of antibacterial compounds (Gentamycin polymer, DAC hydrogel, silver-coated and iodine-coated implants), micro-textured surfaces, or anti-adhesion topographies: nevertheless, no method seems ideal, different results are reported, and no consensus exists on the use of a specific bactericidal surface [26].

3.9. Local Antibiotic Delivery

During an acute or chronic PJI, bacterial infiltration is mainly identified in the joint space which is poorly vascularized and more tolerant to bacteria proliferation before a local immune response can be stimulated. Because of this, a strategy to prevent bacterial colonization and biofilm formation may be needed to support a delayed and compromised immune response. Localized delivery of antibiotics is able to provide high concentrations of antibiotics that cannot be achieved systemically. Current evidence on the efficacy of Antibiotic-Impregnated Bone Cement (AIBC) in primary TKA is inconclusive [8][19][50]. Recently, calcium-sulphate antibiotic-added resorbable beads have received much attention, particularly due to their faster and longer elution compared to AIBC and poly-methyl-methacrylate (PMMA) beads. Unlike PMMA beads, calcium sulphate beads (CSB) do not need removal from the joint space and there is no risk of acting as a potential foreign body for bacterial colonization [51][52]. In vitro studies reported that calcium sulphate beads were capable of bacterial growth inhibition, preventing early bacterial colonization and biofilm formation by MRSA, S. epidermidis, and gram-negative bacteria by reaching localized antibiotic levels above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) up to 39 days. However, various complications have been described when a higher volume of beads has been used—these include transient hypercalcemia, wound drainage, and heterotopic ossification [53][54].


  1. Solarino, G.; Abate, A.; Vicenti, G.; Spinarelli, A.; Piazzolla, A.; Moretti, B. Reducing periprosthetic joint infection: What really counts? Joints 2016, 3, 208–214.
  2. AAOS Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline on the Diagnosis and Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infections. 2019. Available online: (accessed on 1 October 2020).
  3. Alvi, H.M.; Mednick, R.E.; Krishnan, V.; Kwasny, M.J.; Beal, M.D.; Manning, D.W. The Effect of BMI on 30 Day Outcomes Following Total Joint Arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2015, 30, 1113–1117.
  4. Lubbeke, A.; Zingg, M.; Vu, D.; Miozzari, H.H.; Christofilopoulos, P.; Uckay, I.; Harbarth, S.; Hoffmeyer, P. Body mass and weight thresholds for increased prosthetic joint infection rates after primary total joint arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2016, 87, 132–138.
  5. Workgroup of the AAHKS. Obesity and total joint arthroplasty: A literature based review. J. Arthroplast. 2013, 28, 714–721.
  6. Huang, R.; Greenky, M.; Kerr, G.J.; Austin, M.S.; Parvizi, J. The effect of malnutrition on patients undergoing elective joint arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2013, 28, 21–24.
  7. Greene, K.A.; Wilde, A.H.; Stulberg, B.N. Preoperative nutritional status of total joint patients. Relationship to postoperative wound complications. J. Arthroplast. 1991, 6, 321–325.
  8. Alamanda, V.K.; Springer, B.D. The prevention of infection: 12 modifiable risk factors. Bone Jt. J. 2019, 101-B, 3–9.
  9. Marchant, M.H., Jr.; Viens, N.A.; Cook, C.; Vail, T.P.; Bolognesi, M.P. The impact of glycemic control and diabetes mellitus on perioperative outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2009, 91, 1621–1629.
  10. Kunutsor, S.K.; Whitehouse, M.R.; Blom, A.W.; Beswick, A.D.; INFORM Team. Patient-Related Risk Factors for Periprosthetic Joint Infection after Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0150866.
  11. Chrastil, J.; Anderson, M.B.; Stevens, V.; Anand, R.; Peters, C.L.; Pelt, C.E. Is Hemoglobin A1c or Perioperative Hyperglycemia Predictive of Periprosthetic Joint Infection or Death Following Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty? J. Arthroplast. 2015, 30, 1197–1202.
  12. Iorio, R.; Williams, K.M.; Marcantonio, A.J.; Specht, L.M.; Tilzey, J.F.; Healy, W.L. Diabetes mellitus, hemoglobin A1C, and the incidence of total joint arthroplasty infection. J. Arthroplast. 2012, 27, 726–729.
  13. Jiranek, W.; Kigera, J.W.M.; Klatt, B.A.; Kucukdurmaz, F.; Lieberman, J.; Moser, C.; Mulhall, K.; Nahouli, H.; Schwarz, E.; Shohat, N.; et al. General Assembly, Prevention, Host Risk Mitigation-General Factors: Proceedings of International Consensus on Orthopedic Infections. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, S43–S48.
  14. Sorensen, L.T. Wound healing and infection in surgery. The clinical impact of smoking and smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch. Surg. 2012, 147, 373–383.
  15. Wong, J.; Lam, D.P.; Abrishami, A.; Chan, M.T.; Chung, F. Short-term preoperative smoking cessation and postoperative complications: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Can. J. Anaesth. 2012, 59, 268–279.
  16. Pitto, R.P.; Sedel, L. Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Hip Arthroplasty: Is There an Association Between Infection and Bearing Surface Type? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2016, 474, 2213–2218.
  17. Kapadia, B.H.; Johnson, A.J.; Daley, J.A.; Issa, K.; Mont, M.A. Pre-admission cutaneous chlorhexidine preparation reduces surgical site infections in total hip arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2013, 28, 490–493.
  18. Shohat, N.; Parvizi, J. Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Examining the Recent Guidelines. J. Arthroplast. 2017, 32, 2040–2046.
  19. Pavlík, V.; Sojka, M.; Mazúrová, M.; Velebný, V. Dual role of iodine, silver, chlorhexidine and octenidine as antimicrobial and antiprotease agents. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0211055.
  20. Alijanipour, P.; Heller, S.; Parvizi, J. Prevention of periprosthetic joint infection: What are the effective strategies? J. Knee Surg. 2014, 27, 251–258.
  21. Rao, N.; Cannella, B.; Crossett, L.S.; Yates, A.J., Jr.; McGough, R. A preoperative decolonization protocol for staphylococcus aureus prevents orthopaedic infections. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2008, 466, 1343–1348.
  22. Kowalski, T.J.; Kothari, S.N.; Mathiason, M.A.; Borgert, A.J. Impact of Hair Removal on Surgical Site Infection Rates: A Prospective Randomized Noninferiority Trial. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2016, 223, 704–711.
  23. Norton, T.D.; Skeete, F.; Dubrovskaya, Y.; Phillips, M.S.; Bosco, J.D., 3rd; Mehta, S.A. Orthopedic surgical site infections: Analysis of causative bacteria and implications for 429 antibiotic stewardship. Am. J. Orthop. 2014, 43, E89–E92.
  24. Bosco, J.A.; Prince Rainier, R.T.; Catanzano, A.J.; Stachel, A.G.; Phillips, M.S. Expanded Gram-Negative Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Reduces Surgical Site Infections in Hip Arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2016, 31, 616–621.
  25. Sewick, A.; Makani, A.; Wu, C.; O’Donnell, J.; Baldwin, K.D.; Lee, G.C. Does dual antibiotic prophylaxis better prevent surgical site infections in total joint arthroplasty? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2012, 470, 2702–2707.
  26. Aboltins, C.A.; Berdal, J.E.; Casas, F.; Corona, P.S.; Cuellar, D.; Ferrari, M.C.; Hendershot, E.; Huang, W.; Kuo, F.-C.; Malkani, A.; et al. Hip and Knee Section, Prevention, Antimicrobials (Systemic): Proceedings of International Consensus on Orthopedic Infections. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, S279–S288.
  27. Berrios-Torres, S.I.; Umscheid, C.A.; Bratzler, D.W.; Leas, B.; Stone, E.C.; Kelz, R.R.; Reinke, C.E.; Morgan, S.; Solomkin, J.S.; Mazuski, J.E.; et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 2017. JAMA Surg. 2017, 152, 784–791.
  28. Inabathula, A.; Dilley, J.E.; Ziemba-Davis, M.; Warth, L.C.; Azzam, K.A.; Ireland, P.H.; Meneghini, R.M. Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis in High-Risk Patients Substantially Reduces Primary Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty 90-Day Infection Rate. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2018, 100, 2103–2109.
  29. Claret, G.; Tornero, E.; Martínez-Pastor, J.-C.; Piazuelo, M.; Martínez, J.; Bosch, J.; Mensa, J.; Soriano, A. A Prolonged Post-Operative Antibiotic Regimen Reduced the Rate of Prosthetic Joint Infection after Aseptic Revision Knee Arthroplasty. Surg. Infect. 2015, 16, 775–780.
  30. Morrison, T.N.; Chen, A.F.; Taneja, M.; Kucukdurmaz, F.; Rothman, R.H.; Parvizi, J. Single vs. Repeat Surgical Skin Preparations for Reducing Surgical Site Infection After Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded Study. J. Arthroplast. 2016, 31, 1289–1294.
  31. Blom, A.; Cho, J.; Fleischman, A.; Goswami, K.; Ketonis, C.; Kunutsor, S.K.; Makar, G.; Meeker, D.G.; Morgan-Jones, R.; Ortega-Peña, S.; et al. General Assembly, Prevention, Antiseptic Irrigation Solution: Proceedings of International Consensus on Orthopedic Infections. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, S131–S138.
  32. WHO. Global Guidelines for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
  33. Bigliardi, P.L.; Alsagoff, S.A.L.; El-Kafrawi, H.Y.; Pyon, J.K.; Wa, C.T.C.; Villa, M.A. Povidone iodine in wound healing: A review of current concepts and practices. Int. J. Surg. 2017, 44, 260–268.
  34. Brown, N.M.; Cipriano, C.A.; Moric, M.; Sporer, S.M.; Della Valle, C.J. Dilute betadine lavage before closure for the prevention of acute postoperative deep periprosthetic joint infection. J. Arthroplast. 2012, 27, 27–30.
  35. Chundamala, J.; Wright, J.G. The efficacy and risks of using povidone-iodine irrigation to prevent surgical site infection: An evidence-based review. Can. J. Surg. 2007, 50, 473–481.
  36. Cichos, K.H.; Andrews, R.M.; Wolschendorf, F.; Narmore, W.; Mabry, S.E.; Ghanem, E.S. Efficacy of Intraoperative Antiseptic Techniques in the Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Superiority of Betadine. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, S312–S318.
  37. Schmidt, K.; Estes, C.; McLaren, A.; Spangehl, M.J. Chlorhexidine Antiseptic Irrigation Eradicates Staphylococcus epidermidis From Biofilm: An In Vitro Study. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2018, 476, 648–653.
  38. Levack, A.E.; Cyphert, E.L.; Bostrom, M.P.; Hernandez, C.J.; von Recum, H.A.; Carli, A.V. Current Options and Emerging Biomaterials for Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Curr. Rheumatol. Rep. 2018, 20, 33.
  39. Patel, V.P.; Walsh, M.; Sehgal, B.; Preston, C.; DeWal, H.; Di Cesare, P.E. Factors associated with prolonged wound drainage after primary total hip and knee arthroplasty. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2007, 89, 33–38.
  40. Nett, M.; Avelar, R.; Sheehan, M.; Cushner, F. Water-tight knee arthrotomy closure: Comparison of a novel single bidirectional barbed self-retaining running suture versus conventional interrupted sutures. J. Knee Surg. 2011, 24, 55–59.
  41. Papas, P.V.; Congiusta, D.; Scuderi, G.R.; Cushner, F.D. A Modern Approach to Preventing Prosthetic Joint Infections. J. Knee Surg. 2018, 31, 610–617.
  42. Ahmed, I.; Boulton, A.J.; Rizvi, S.; Carlos, W.; Dickenson, E.; Smith, N.A.; Reed, M. The use of triclosan-coated sutures to prevent surgical site infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. BMJ Open 2019, 9, e029727.
  43. Wu, X.; Kubilay, N.Z.; Ren, J.; Allegranzi, B.; Bischoff, P.; Zayed, B.; Pittet, D.; Li, J. Antimicrobial-coated sutures to decrease surgical site infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2017, 36, 19–32.
  44. Grosso, M.J.; Berg, A.; LaRussa, S.; Murtaugh, T.; Trofa, D.P.; Geller, J.A. Silver-Impregnated Occlusive Dressing Reduces Rates of Acute Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Joint Arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2017, 32, 929–932.
  45. Springer, B.D.; Beaver, W.B.; Griffin, W.L.; Mason, J.B.; Odum, S.M. Role of Surgical Dressings in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am. J. Orthop. 2015, 44, 415–420.
  46. Al-Houraibi, R.K.; Aalirezaie, A.; Adib, F.; Anoushiravani, A.; Bhashyam, A.; Binlaksar, R.; Blevins, K.; Bonanzinga, T.; Chih-Kuo, F.; Cordova, M.; et al. General Assembly, Prevention, Wound Management: Proceedings of International Consensus on Orthopedic Infections. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, S157–S168.
  47. Hexter, A.T.; Hislop, S.M.; Blunn, G.W.; Liddle, A.D. The effect of bearing surface on risk of periprosthetic joint infection in total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Jt. J. 2018, 100-B, 134–142.
  48. Madanat, R.; Laaksonen, I.; Graves, S.E.; Lorimer, M.; Muratoglu, O.; Malchau, H. Ceramic bearings for total hip arthroplasty are associated with a reduced risk of revision for infection. Hip Int. 2018, 28, 222–226.
  49. Zadpoor, A.A. Current Trends in Metallic Orthopedic Biomaterials: From Additive Manufacturing to Bio-Functionalization, Infection Prevention, and Beyond. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 2684.
  50. Anis, H.K.; Sodhi, N.; Faour, M.; Klika, A.K.; Mont, M.A.; Barsoum, W.K.; Higuera, C.A.; Molloy, R.M. Effect of Antibiotic-Impregnated Bone Cement in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, 2091–2095.
  51. Howlin, R.P.; Brayford, M.J.; Webb, J.S.; Cooper, J.J.; Aiken, S.S.; Stoodley, P. Antibiotic-loaded synthetic calcium sulfate beads for prevention of bacterial colonization and biofilm formation in periprosthetic infections. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2015, 59, 111–120.
  52. Lewis, G.; Janna, S. Estimation of the optimum loading of an antibiotic powder in an acrylic bone cement: Gentamicin sulfate in SmartSet HV. Acta Orthop. 2006, 77, 622–627.
  53. Kallala, R.; Haddad, F.S. Hypercalcaemia following the use of antibiotic-eluting absorbable calcium sulphate beads in revision arthroplasty for infection. Bone Jt. J. Surg. 2015, 97-B, 1237–1241.
  54. Kallala, R.; Harris, W.E.; Ibrahim, M.; Dipane, M.; McPherson, E. Use of Stimulan absorbable calcium sulphate beads in revision lower limb arthroplasty: Safety profile and complication rates. Bone Jt. Res. 2018, 7, 570–579.
Subjects: Biology
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to :
View Times: 352
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 23 Jul 2021
Video Production Service