Short-course versus long-course antibiotics in prosthetic joint infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of one randomized controlled trial plus nine observational studies.

Abstract

BACKGROUND\nProsthetic joint infections (PJIs) often require long-course antibiotic therapy. However, recent studies argue against the current practice and raise concerns such as the development of antibiotic resistance, side effects of medications and medical costs.\n\n\nOBJECTIVES\nTo review and compare the outcomes of short-course and long-course antibiotics in PJIs.\n\n\nMETHODS\nWe conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis using a predefined search term in PubMed and EMBASE databases. Studies that met the inclusion criteria from inception to June 2018 were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed.\n\n\nRESULTS\nA total of 10 articles and 856 patients were analysed, comprising 9 observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial. Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between short-course and long-course antibiotics (relative risk\u205f=\u205f0.87, 95% CI\u205f=\u205f0.62-1.22). Additionally, the older the studied group was, the more short-course antibiotics were favoured.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nWhen treating PJI patients following debridement, antibiotics and implant retention, an 8\u2009week course of antibiotic therapy for total hip arthroplasty and a 75\u2009day course for total knee arthroplasty may be a safe approach. For two-stage exchange, a shorter duration of antibiotic treatment during implant-free periods is also generally safe with the usage of antibiotic-loaded cement spacers.