Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 31, 2026
Novel Diagnostics in Revision Arthroplasty: Implant Sonication and Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction
Published on: December 3, 2017
Extended Prophylactic Antibiotics for Primary and Aseptic Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis
Suhas P Dasari1, Sanjana D Kanumuri1, JaeWon Yang1
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Background:
There is growing interest in extended antibiotic prophylaxis (EAP) following total joint arthroplasty (TJA); however, the benefit of EAP remains controversial. For this investigation, both oral and intravenous antibiotic protocols were included in the EAP group.
Methods:
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Ovid Embase, Elton B. Stephens CO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were queried for literature comparing outcomes of primary and aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients who were treated with either ≤24 hours of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (standard of care [SoC]) or >24 hours of EAP. The primary outcome was periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). A pooled relative-risk random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model was implemented to compare cohorts.
Results:
There were 18 studies with a total of 19,153 patients included. There was considerable variation in antibiotic prophylaxis protocols with first-generation cephalosporins being the most commonly implemented antibiotic for both groups. Patients treated with EAP were 35% less likely to develop PJI relative to the SoC (P = .0004). When examining primary TJA, patients treated with EAP were 39% and 40% less likely to develop a PJI for TJA (P = .0008) and THA (P = .02), respectively. There was no significant difference for primary TKA (P = .17). When examining aseptic revision TJA, EAP led to a 36% and 47% reduction in the probability of a PJI for aseptic revision TJA (P = .007) and aseptic revision TKA (P = .008), respectively; there was no observed benefit for aseptic revision THA (P = .36).
Conclusions:
This meta-analysis demonstrated that patients treated with EAP were less likely to develop a PJI relative to those treated with the SoC for all TJA, primary TJA, primary THA, aseptic revision TJA, and aseptic revision TKA. There was no significant difference observed between EAP and SoC for primary TKA or aseptic revision THA.
