Efficacy of antimicrobial coated orthopaedic implants on the prevention of periprosthetic infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Main Authors: O. D. Savvidou, A. Kaspiris, I. Trikoupis, G. Kakouratos, S. Goumenos, D. Melissaridou, P. J. Papagelopoulos
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Copernicus Publications 2020-06-01
• Series: Journal of Bone and Joint Infection
• Online Access: https://jbji.copernicus.org/articles/5/212/2020/jbji-5-212-2020.pdf

<p class="p p-first" id="idm140447642028352"><strong>Introduction:</strong> Implant-associated infections are a major problem in orthopaedic surgery. Local delivery systems of antimicrobial agents on the implant surface have attracted great interest recently. The purpose of this study was to identify antimicrobial coatings currently used in clinical practice, examining their safety and effectiveness in reducing post-operative infection rates.</p><p id="idm140447642027456"><strong>Materials and Methods:</strong> A systematic review was conducted in four databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Cinahl) according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines up to December 2019, using the key words “orthopaedic implant coated”, “coated implant infection”, “silver coating ” and “antibiotic coating”.</p><p id="idm140447642026528"><strong>Results:</strong> Seven articles involving 1307 patients (561 with coated implants and 746 controls who were not) comparing the incidence of periprosthetic infections after the application of internal fracture fixation, total arthroplasties and endoprostheses were evaluated. Three different coating technologies were identified: gentamicin coating for tibia nail and total arthroplasties; silver technology and povidone-iodine coating for tumour endoprostheses and titanium implants. Meta-analysis demonstrated that patients who were treated with antimicrobial coated implants presented lower infection rates compared to controls over the seven studies (Q = 6.1232, I2 = 0.00, 95% CI: 1.717 to 4.986, OR: 2.926, Z= 3.949, p&lt;0.001). Subgroup statistical analysis revealed that each coating technique was effective in the prevention of periprosthetic infections (Q = 9.2606, I2 = 78.40%, 95% CI: 1.401 to 4.070, OR: 2.388, Z= 3.200, p&lt;0.001).</p><p class="p p-last" id="idm140447642025056"><strong>Conclusion:</strong> All technologies were reported to have good biocompatibility and were effective in the reduction of post-operative peri-prosthetic infection rates.</p>