MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407767112 · doi:10.3390/antibiotics14030214

Effectiveness of Local Antibiotics for Infection Prevention in Primary Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4407767112 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C.-F. J. Lin, Chiung-Li Liu, Hon-Lok Lo, Shao-Yuan Hao, Wei-Hsuan Huang, Hsiu-Mei Chang, Tun‐Chieh Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueAntibiotics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital
KeywordsMedicineRelative riskRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioPeriprostheticCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisConfidence intervalCohort studyInternal medicineCohortSurgeryStatistical significanceArthroplasty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of local antibiotic prophylaxis (e.g., powder, bone cement, intraosseous injection) in reducing periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) and deep wound infections in adults undergoing primary joint replacement surgery. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted from inception to 7 September 2024, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies without language restrictions. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 for RCTs and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies. Infection rates were extracted and analyzed using risk ratios (RR) or odds ratios (OR) in a random-effects model with Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4. Sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were also performed to validate the study results and possible risk factors. Results: Twelve RCTs and 21 cohort studies were included in the review. Vancomycin powder in the cohort studies demonstrated statistical significance (OR = 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36–0.61, I2 = 0%), in contrast to the results in the RCTs (RR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.06–2.47, I2 = 49%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness and statistical significance of these findings. Both the control and treatment groups primarily cultured Gram-positive pathogens, including in the overall data and specifically for vancomycin powder. The evidence for the use of intraosseous injection (RR of RCTs not estimable, I2 not applicable; OR of cohorts = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.02–0.63, I2 = 0%) and bone cement (RR of RCTs = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.14–1.17, I2 = 56%; OR of cohorts = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.25–2.82, I2 not applicable) was inconclusive. Smoking was identified as an important risk factor for post-operative infection. Further research, including more robust trials and cohort studies, is needed to confirm these findings. Conclusions: Local administration of vancomycin powder appears effective in preventing deep wound infection after arthroplasty.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntibioticsSame topicOrthopedic Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207