Intrawound vancomycin powder for prevention of surgical site infections in primary joint arthroplasty: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Zhong Zhu, Tao‐Hsin Tung, Yongwei Su, Yimin Li, Hua Luo
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this umbrella review is to explore the effect of intrawound vancomycin on the incidence of infection and wound complications in patients undergoing primary joint arthroplasty. METHODS: Two authors conducted a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 15 October 2023. All systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining the effect of intrawound vancomycin on the incidence of infection and wound complications in primary joint arthroplasty were included. Two authors independently screened and extracted the data from the studies, evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews scale, and assessed the publication bias and small-sample effects. RESULTS: Our umbrella review includes a total of five systematic reviews, comprising 16 retrospective studies. The pooled results indicate that intrawound vancomycin significantly reduces overall infection rates [odds ratio (OR): 0.41; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30-0.54, P < 0.001], superficial infections (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.26-0.97, P = 0.04), and periprosthetic joint infection rates (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.28-0.52, P < 0.001) among patients undergoing primary joint arthroplasty. However, vancomycin did not increase the risk of aseptic wound complications (OR: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.88-2.04, P = 0.17) and prolong wound healing (OR: 1.40; 95% CI: 0.87-2.26, P = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available research, our umbrella review demonstrates that intrawound vancomycin significantly reduces infection rates in primary joint arthroplasty, including periprosthetic joint and superficial infections, without increasing wound complications. However, given the inclusion of studies with varying quality, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Further high-quality studies are needed to better confirm its long-term safety, cost-effectiveness, and overall clinical utility.