Intraosseous regional antibiotic prophylaxis in total joint arthroplasty (TJA): Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: A major catastrophic adverse event after total joint arthroplasty surgery (TJA) is the periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). In the recent years, regional antibiotic prophylaxis has gained momentum as a novel infection control strategy in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), with different purported benefits over systemic administration. The current article was planned to comprehensively review the available evidence in literature; as well as compare the safety and effectiveness of intraosseous (IO) antibiotic prophylaxis with systemic prophylaxis in patients undergoing TJA.

Methods: An independent database (5 databases: Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, Web of science and Cochrane library) search was performed (on January 1, 2024) using suitable key words [PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42023458219)]. All randomised controlled trials (RCT), prospective or retrospective studies reporting data on intraosseous vancomycin or other antibiotics during arthroplasty for prophylaxis of PJI were considered. Studies not pertaining to the topic of interest or non-clinical trials were excluded. The evaluated outcome parameters included PJI incidence, systemic antibiotic levels, minimal inhibitory concentrations, local antibiotic concentrations achieved in soft tissues (or fat) and bone; and associated complications. While the "risk of bias" was evaluated using ROB-2 tool and MINORS criteria; LibreOffice version (v)7.5.6 was utilized for data management. OpenMeta-analyst v5.26.14 and RevMan v5.4 software were employed for meta-analysis.

Results: Following our literature search, 11 studies (1 prospective series, 6 RCT and 4 retrospective studies) were finally identified. Based on our meta-analysis, there was statistically higher antibiotic concentration in the bone [mean difference (MD):25.12 μg/g;95%CI:10.32,39.91;z=3.33,p = 0.0009] and local fat tissues [MD:22.01 μg/g;95%CI:1.71,32.30;z=4.19,p < 0.0001) following IO prophylaxis, as compared with the systemic drug administration. IO prophylaxis was also associated with a significant reduction in prosthetic joint infections (PJI; April 1633 and 25/2213 patients developed PJI in IO and systemic prophylaxis groups, respectively; p = 0.006). There was significant difference in gram-positive infections between IO and systemic prophylaxis groups (2/1123 and 13/1753 g + ve infections in IO and systemic prophylaxis groups, respectively; p = 0.05). Our review and meta-analysis revealed no substantial difference in complications amongst the groups (p = 0.66).

Conclusion: IO antibiotic prophylaxis appears to be an effective and safe strategy in patients undergoing TJA. IO access provides substantially enhanced antibiotic elution into the local tissues (bone and soft tissues); and consequently, results in reduced of PJI rates after TJA (in comparison with conventional systemic antibiotic prophylaxis).