Next Article in Journal
Impact of Surgical Approach, Patient Risk Factors, and Diverting Ileostomy on Anastomotic Leakage and Outcomes After Rectal Cancer Resection: A 5-Year Single-Center Study
Previous Article in Journal
Endometrial Carcinoma and Associated Secondary Neoplasia: The Role of Clinical Features, Pathology, and Comorbidities in a University-Affiliated Clinical Center from Western Romania
Previous Article in Special Issue
Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Combined with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Clinical and Functional Outcomes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Medicina
Volume 61
Issue 10
10.3390/medicina61101750
medicina-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Efficacy and Safety of Intraosseous Versus Intravenous Antibiotic in Primary and Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Sunwoo Lee
1,
Jiyun Kang
1,
Yonggyun Moon
1,
Jaeyoung Hong
1,
Hyoungtae Kim
1,2 and
Suenghwan Jo
1,2,*
1
College of Medicine, Chosun University, Gwangju 61452, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chosun University Hospital, Gwangju 61453, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Medicina 2025, 61(10), 1750; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61101750
Submission received: 31 August 2025 / Revised: 16 September 2025 / Accepted: 22 September 2025 / Published: 25 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Updates on Risk Factors, Prevention and Treatment of Knee Disease)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most serious complications following total joint arthroplasty (TJA), leading to poor functional outcomes and increased healthcare burden. Intraosseous (IO) regional antibiotic prophylaxis has emerged as a promising method for infection prevention, offering potential advantages over conventional intravenous (IV) systemic administration. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of IO prophylaxis in TJA. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to 23 June 2025. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting outcomes of IO antibiotic administration in TJA. Primary endpoints were systemic and local antibiotic concentrations (bone and fat tissue), the incidence of PJI, and complication profiles. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROB-2 and ROBINS-I tools, and meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan v 7.2.0. Results: Fifteen studies (eight RCTs, one prospective study, and six retrospective studies) were included for qualitative synthesis, of which ten were included in the meta-analysis. As compared with IV, IO administration resulted in significantly higher local antibiotic concentrations in bone (MD: 15.52 μg/g; 95% CI: 8.60–22.45; p < 0.0001) and fat tissue (MD: 18.15 μg/g; 95% CI: 12.86–23.45; p < 0.0001). IO prophylaxis was associated with a significantly lower PJI rate (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.12–0.57; p = 0.008) without a significant difference in the incidence of complications (p = 0.66). Conclusions: IO antibiotic prophylaxis is an effective and safe strategy for infection prevention in total joint arthroplasty. By achieving superior local antibiotic concentrations and reducing PJI rates without increasing complications, this approach holds promise for broader clinical application.

1. Introduction

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious yet relatively infrequent complication of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA), with an incidence of 1–2% following primary procedures [1]. Despite its low occurrence, PJI is a major cause of arthroplasty failure and revision, leading to substantial patient morbidity and healthcare costs [2,3]. With an aging population and increasing arthroplasty volume, the absolute number of PJIs is expected to rise, highlighting the need for improved prophylactic strategies [4,5].
Since the 1970s, intravenous (IV) antibiotic prophylaxis has constituted the standard of antibiotic prophylaxis because of its demonstrated efficacy in reducing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) [6]. First-generation cephalosporins have been the most commonly used agents for intravenous (IV) prophylaxis; however, rising antimicrobial resistance has led to increasing consideration of vancomycin as an alternative [7,8]. Vancomycin has shown efficacy in the treatment of infections caused by MRSA and coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) [9]. However it presents pharmacologic challenges: it requires slow infusion, has limited local tissue penetration, and carries a risk of nephrotoxicity and other adverse effects [10]. Intraosseous (IO) regional antibiotic administration has emerged as a promising alternative to enhance local drug delivery while minimizing systemic exposure [11]. By injecting antibiotics directly into cancellous bone, IO prophylaxis produces significantly higher local tissue concentrations and simultaneously minimizes systemic concentrations. This technique was shown to be more effective and safe in surgical settings than intravenous (IV) prophylaxis [12,13].
Recent systematic reviews have reported that IO antibiotic delivery achieves higher tissue concentrations and reduces PJI rates more effectively than standard IV prophylaxis in patients undergoing TJA [12,13,14,15]. These reviews provided successful syntheses across various TJA procedures, particularly TKA. However, apart from studies in TKA, much of the included evidence involving aseptic revision TKA or THA that was heterogeneous or derived from small-scale retrospective cohorts. Therefore, there appears to be a need for updated meta-analyses incorporating recently published studies.
The aim of this study is to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intraosseous (IO) regional antibiotic prophylaxis in various TJA procedures through the assessment of tissue concentration, PJI rate, and complication incidence. Through the meta-analysis of recent clinical studies, we seek to determine whether IO administration is a superior infection prevention strategy and whether it can be considered a reliable adjunct or alternative to conventional IV prophylaxis in routine arthroplasty practice.

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement) [16,17] guidelines and NECA (National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency)’s guidance [18]. The protocol for this review was pre-registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD420251065554).

2.1. Literature Search

A comprehensive electronic search was performed on 23 June 2025 in five bibliographic databases—PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library—without date restrictions. The search query combined keywords as follows: ([Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip] OR [Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee]) AND ([Hip Prosthesis] OR [Knee Prosthesis]) AND ([Anti-Bacterial Agents] OR [Anti-Infective Agents, Local]) AND (Infusions, Intraosseous) (Supplementary S1). The reference lists of the included studies were also reviewed to identify any additional relevant articles.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

The inclusion of studies was determined based on the following PICO criteria: P (Population): adult patients undergoing primary or revision THA or TKA; I (Intervention): intraosseous administration of prophylactic antibiotics during surgery; C (Comparison): patients who received intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis; O (Outcomes): antibiotic concentration in local tissue and fat tissue, minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs), incidence of prosthetic joint infection (PJI), and antibiotic-related complications. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (prospective or retrospective) were included, whereas reviews, comments, case reports, descriptive studies, or news articles were excluded. Furthermore, non-English, non-human, and non-clinical studies were also excluded.

2.3. Study Selection

Prior to screening, all references identified through database searches were deduplicated using EndNote (version 21.5). Two researchers (S.L. and J.K.) independently screened the titles and abstracts of the deduplicated studies based on the eligibility criteria. Subsequently, full-text screening was conducted to determine the final set of included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion with the senior author (S.J.).

2.4. Data Extraction

Data extraction was performed by one author (S.L.), and the extracted data were independently reviewed and verified by the other members of the research team. The extracted demographic and clinical data were summarized as follows: demographic variables included sample size (n), mean age (years), sex distribution (%), average body mass index (BMI, kg/m2), tourniquet time (minutes), minimum follow-up duration (months), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, and serum creatinine level (mg/dL). Outcome data for meta-analysis included tissue concentrations (bone and fat), serum concentrations, prosthetic joint infection rate, and incidence of complications.

2.5. Risk-of-Bias Assessment

The independent researchers (L.S.W. and J.K.) assessed the risk of bias for included studies. The risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the ROB-2 tool (a revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials), while non-randomized studies were evaluated with the ROBINS-I tool (risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions). Any disagreements in the assessment were resolved by discussion between reviewers and a third reviewer (J.H.).

2.6. Statistics

For statistical analysis, mean difference and standard mean difference were used for continuous variables, while odd ratio was applied to categorical variables. The statistical pooling of data was conducted using Chi-square and I2 analysis. Depending on the level of heterogeneity, either a fixed effects or random effects model was applied. All data management and meta-analysis tasks were performed using RevMan version 7.2.0. (Copenhagen, The Cochrane Collaboration). When mean differences (MDs) and standard deviations (SDs) required for meta-analysis were not available in the included studies, we estimated them using an online calculator based on the available data such as medians and quartile ranges [19,20,21,22].

3. Results

3.1. Study Identification

The PRISMA flowchart is depicted in Figure 1. The initial search yielded a total of 215 studies (51 from PubMed and Embase, 26 from Scopus, 124 from Web of Science, and 14 from Cochrane Library). The title and abstract screening yielded 26 potentially eligible studies, and full-text assessment resulted in 15 studies meeting the PICO inclusion criteria. Finally, 8 randomized controlled trials (one involving total hip arthroplasty) [11,23,24,25,26,27,28,29], five cohort studies (all focused on total knee arthroplasty) [30,31,32,33,34], and two consecutive series [35,36] were included. Of these, 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis.

3.2. Study Characteristics

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics—including age, sex distribution, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, comorbidity prevalence (e.g., diabetes, chronic renal failure, rheumatoid arthritis, liver disease, and human immunodeficiency virus infection), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification—were reported across the included studies (Table 1). These characteristics were generally comparable between the intraosseous (IO) and intravenous (IV) groups, although the completeness of reporting varied. Where available, laboratory parameters such as serum creatinine, serum albumin, and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) were also extracted.

3.3. Risk of Bias

The results of the risk-of-bias assessment are depicted in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Risk of bias was evaluated for eight RCTs [11,23,24,25,26,27,28,29] and five cohort studies [30,31,32,33,34]; case series without a control group, such as Lachiewicz et al. [35] and Christopher et al. [36], were not assessed. Using the ROB-2 tool, four RCTs were judged to have a low risk of bias and four were considered to have ‘some concerns’. For the five cohort studies assessed with the ROBINS-I tool, one study was rated as ‘moderate’ risk, while the remaining four were judged as ‘serious’ risk.

3.4. Efficacy of IO Antibiotic Prophylaxis Achieving Higher Antibiotic Concentrations

3.4.1. Antibiotic Concentration in Local Bone Tissues

A total of seven studies [11,23,24,25,26,27,29] reported the antibiotic concentration in local bone tissues (Table 2). Five studies [23,24,25,26,29] and 106 cases were included in the meta-analysis, all of which were RCTs (Table 1 and Table 2). Pooled data from these studies showed that the antibiotic concentration in local bone tissue was significantly higher in the IO group than IV group (MD, 20.61; 95% CI, 6.54 to 34.69; p = 0.004; I2 = 68%; random effects model) (Figure 4A).
In the study by Young et al. [11], both intraosseous (IO) and intravenous (IV) groups received 1 g of cefazolin; the mean antibiotic concentration in local bone tissue was also significantly higher in the IO group (130 μg/g) compared with the IV group (11.4 μg/g; p < 0.01). And in Harper et al. [27], which included only patients undergoing THA, the IO group demonstrated a higher vancomycin concentration in acetabular bone reaming (p = 0.001) and in the intramedullary femoral bone (p = 0.053).

3.4.2. Antibiotic Concentration in Local Fat Tissues

A total of six studies [11,23,24,25,26,28] reported the antibiotic concentration in local fat tissues (Table 2). Four studies [23,24,25,26] and 86 cases were included in the meta-analysis, all of which were RCT (Table 1 and Table 2). Pooled data from these studies showed that the antibiotic concentration in local fat tissue was significantly higher in the IO group than IV group (MD, 22.52; 95% CI, 11.07 to 33.97; p = 0.0001; I2 = 72%; random effects model) (Figure 4B).
In the study by Young et al. [11], the mean antibiotic concentration in subcutaneous fat was also significantly higher in the IO group (186 μg/g) compared with the IV group (10.6 μg/g; p < 0.01). In the study by Zhang et al. [28], patients undergoing TKA received 2 g of cefazolin in both the IO and IV groups. The IO group demonstrated a higher antibiotic concentration in subcutaneous fat (247.9 ± 64.9 μg/g) compared with the IV group (11.4 ± 1.9 μg/g).

3.4.3. Antibiotic Concentration in Serum

A total of five studies [23,24,26,27,29] reported antibiotic concentration in serum (Table 2). Two studies [26,29] and 44 cases were included in the meta-analysis, all of which were RCT (Table 1 and Table 2). Pooled data from these studies showed that the serum antibiotic concentration was significantly lower in the IO group than IV group (MD, −12.46; 95% CI, −13.90 to −11.01; p < 0.00001; I2 = 46%; fixed effects model) (Figure 4C).
In Chin et al. [11] and Young et al. [23], the mean serum antibiotic concentration is also lower in the IO group compared with the IV group (p < 0.01). In the study by Harper et al. [27], which investigated patients undergoing THA, a significant reduction was observed both at the start of the procedure and at the time of closure (p < 0.001).

3.5. Safety of IO Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Preventing PJI and Complications

3.5.1. Prosthesis Joint Infection (PJI) Rate

A total of seven studies [30,31,32,33,34,35,36] reported the prosthesis joint infection (PJI) rate (Table 3). Five retrospective cohort studies [30,31,32,33,34], comprising 4516 cases, were included in the meta-analysis (Table 1 and Table 3). Pooled data from these studies demonstrated a significantly lower PJI rate in the IO group compared with the IV group (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12–0.57; p = 0.0008; I2 = 46%; fixed effects model) (Figure 5).
As a subgroup analysis, we separately evaluated the revision TKA group and the aseptic revision TKA group apart from the primary TKA group. In the primary TKA subgroup, a significant reduction in PJI was observed (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.60; p = 0.005; I2 = 43%; fixed effects model) (Figure 5). In contrast, the revision TKA subgroup did not demonstrate a significant effect (p = 0.76). However, the aseptic revision subgroup showed a borderline statistically significant effect (p = 0.05).
In addition to the meta-analysis, Lachiewicz et al. [35]. reported no protective effect of IO vancomycin in 20 aseptic revision TKAs, In this prospective single-surgeon series, IO vancomycin infusion did not confer a protective effect against early prosthetic joint infection, with three cases of infection (15%) occurring within a mean follow-up of 10 months. However, Christopher et al. [36] observed a markedly lower PJI rate (0.88% at the final follow-up of ≥1 year) in 117 aseptic revision TKAs with IO vancomycin, suggesting a potential benefit in larger cohorts.

3.5.2. Prosthesis Joint Infection (PJI) Stratified by Causative Pathogens

A total of four studies [31,33,34,35] reported data on causative pathogens of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) (Table 3). Three retrospective cohort studies [31,33,34], comprising 2966 cases, were included in the meta-analysis (Table 1 and Table 3). The analysis was stratified into four subgroups (Gram-positive bacterial infection, Gram-negative bacterial infection, culture-negative infection, and mixed growth) to examine the association between vancomycin use and causative pathogens. Among these, a significant reduction in PJI was observed in the IO group compared with the IV group for Gram-positive bacterial infections (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.87; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; fixed effects model) (Figure 6).
In the study by Lachiewicz et al. [35], intraosseous vancomycin infusion conferred no protective benefit, with three early PJIs occurring—two caused by Gram-negative organisms and one by coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. Although this small cohort did not demonstrate overall efficacy, the absence of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections is consistent with the findings of our meta-analysis.

3.5.3. Complications

We extracted overall complication-related outcomes, including acute kidney injury (AKI), pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and red man syndrome (RMS), but only AKI could be subjected to meta-analysis (Table 3). A total of three studies [32,33,34] reported data on the incidence of AKI, of which three retrospective cohort studies [19,21,22], comprising 2411 cases, were included in the analysis (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3). The pooled results demonstrated no significant difference between the IO and IV groups (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.33; p = 0.34; I2 = 0%; fixed effects model) (Figure 7).

4. Discussion

The use of vancomycin for intraosseous administration was first introduced by Young et al. [23]. Prior to the adoption of vancomycin, cephalosporins were widely used in TKA procedures, and they substantially reduced the incidence of deep infections [6,37,38]. However, the growing problem of antibiotic resistance has necessitated the search for alternative prophylactic agents, with vancomycin emerging as a potential option [7,8,39]. Vancomycin has gained attention for its sensitivity against Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) in achieving adequate MIC levels [9]. Nevertheless, vancomycin has also been associated with adverse effects, including infusion rate-related red man syndrome (RMS) and an increased risk of renal and other systemic toxicities, including acute kidney injury (AKI) [40]. In this context, intraosseous administration of vancomycin has been suggested to reduce systemic concentrations and thereby minimize complications, while achieving high local antibiotic levels that may help prevent prosthetic joint infection [23].
This systematic review aimed to examine the effectiveness and safety of intraosseous (IO) regional antibiotic prophylaxis through the assessment of tissue and serum concentrations, PJI rate, and complication incidence. In the meta-analysis, we synthesized data from 15 studies—including 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 6 retrospective cohort studies, and 1 prospective cohort study— encompassing 4873 TJA cases. In the majority of the reviewed studies, vancomycin was the antibiotic of choice for IO administration.
The results of this meta-analysis confirm that IO administration achieved significantly higher local tissue concentrations and lower serum concentrations compared with IV administration, even without the use of a tourniquet in Wininger et al. [29]. Although lower serum concentrations were expected to reduce the risk of systemic toxicity, particularly the incidence of acute kidney injury, this was not statistically demonstrated when compared with IV administration. The results also demonstrated a reduction in PJI incidence, with a similar trend confirmed in the subgroup analysis of aseptic revision TKA. Pathogen-stratified meta-analysis revealed that a significant reduction in PJI rates was observed exclusively in cases caused by Gram-positive bacteria. In addition, the most recent study by McNamara et al. [34] demonstrated a reduction in PJI rates (p = 0.04), supporting the significant sensitivity of vancomycin against Gram-positive organisms, including MRSA. Data regarding tourniquet-related complications, including pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT), were extracted; however, most studies either reported no such events or did not report them at all (Table 2 and Table 3). Nevertheless, in the recent study by McNamara et al. [34], which included 719 cases, the IO group demonstrated lower complication rates compared with the IV group (DVT: 1.2% vs. 1.8%; PE: 0% vs. 0.3%).
The most recent systematic review by Viswanathan et al. [12], which included 11 studies (1 prospective series, 6 RCTs, and 4 retrospective studies), reported that IO access provided substantially enhanced antibiotic penetration into local tissues, with significantly higher concentrations in bone (p = 0.0009) and fat (p = 0.03). In meta-analyses evaluating PJI mitigation, a significant reduction in PJI rates was observed in primary TKA; however, when revision TKA cases were included, the overall effect did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.23). The incidence of isolated Gram-positive infections was significantly higher in the IV group compared with the IO prophylaxis group. In another systematic review, Yu et al. [13] included 4091 patients across 12 studies (7 RCTs, 4 retrospective cohort studies, and 1 prospective cohort study). The authors reported that intraosseous infusion of 500 mg of vancomycin significantly increased antibiotic concentrations in periarticular adipose tissue (p < 0.001) and bone tissue (p < 0.001) compared with 1 g administered intravenously. A meta-analysis of postoperative PJI incidence was conducted exclusively in primary TKA, demonstrating that IO administration of 500 mg of vancomycin was more effective in reducing PJI rates compared with 1 g administered intravenously (p < 0.001). Additionally, no significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding postoperative pulmonary embolism (p = 0.59) or vancomycin-related complications (p = 0.44).
In comparison with previous reviews, this study demonstrates several notable strengths. It constitutes the largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis on intraosseous antibiotic prophylaxis in TJA to date. Compared with the earlier review by Viswanathan et al. [12], this analysis included two additional randomized controlled trials [28,29] and two retrospective studies [30,34]. The inclusion of these newly added studies enabled, for the first time, a quantitative meta-analysis of outcomes such as serum antibiotic concentrations and aseptic revision TKA, which had not been previously evaluated. This study also adhered strictly to the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook, with risk of bias assessed using the ROB-2 tool for randomized controlled trials and the ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies, thereby ensuring a systematic and rigorous appraisal of the evidence base.
This technique allows for the delivery of antibiotic concentrations well above the MIC directly at the surgical site, avoiding the logistical issues associated with timing IV infusions, which is a known challenge with agents like vancomycin. The approach is well-suited for fast-track protocols and could be especially valuable for high-risk patients, such as those with MRSA colonization, obesity, or diabetes [41]. From a health–economic standpoint, the observed reduction in PJI rates could justify the widespread adoption of IO prophylaxis, provided that costs are managed. For successful implementation, standardized protocols, staff training, and careful postoperative monitoring of renal function in at-risk patients are essential.
Future research should be directed at addressing these gaps. There is a need for more comparative trials, particularly head-to-head comparisons against dual IV antibiotic prophylaxis. Further studies are required to establish optimal dosing strategies and to confirm the safety and efficacy of IO prophylaxis in revision and hip arthroplasty. Long-term follow-up extending beyond one year is crucial to evaluate the sustained effect on infection prevention and to identify any potential late adverse events. Finally, research into the cost-effectiveness of this technique within enhanced recovery programs and translational studies on novel IO delivery formulations would help to further optimize prophylactic strategies in total joint arthroplasty.

5. Conclusions

Intraosseous (IO) antibiotic prophylaxis demonstrates significantly higher local antibiotic concentrations in bone and soft tissues and effectively reduces prosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates compared with intravenous administration. This benefit was consistently observed across primary and aseptic revision TKA. No significant increase in systemic complications was reported, supporting the safety and clinical utility of IO prophylaxis in both primary and revision arthroplasty settings.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/medicina61101750/s1, Supplementary S1: Search strategy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.J.; methodology, S.L. and S.J.; software, S.L.; validation, J.K., H.K. and J.H.; formal analysis, S.L.; investigation, S.L.,Y.M. and J.K.; data curation, S.L., Y.M. and J.K.; writing—original draft preparation, S.L.; writing—review and editing, S.L., H.K., J.H., J.K. and S.J.; supervision, S.J.; project administration, S.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. RS-2023-00217471) and also by a research fund from Chosun University Hospital, 2024.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Because this study was a literature review, ethical approval was not obtained.

Informed Consent Statement

Because this study was a literature review, informed consent was not obtained.

Data Availability Statement

All data from this study are available on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
THATotal hip arthroplasty
TKATotal knee arthroplasty
TJATotal joint arthroplasty
RCTRandomized controlled trial
IOIntraosseous
IVIntravenous
BMIBody mass index
PJIProsthesis joint infection
AKIAcute kidney injury
PEPulmonary embolism
DVTDeep vein thrombosis
RMSRed man syndrome

References

  1. Beam, E.; Osmon, D. Prosthetic Joint Infection Update. Infect. Dis. Clin. 2018, 32, 843–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lamagni, T. Epidemiology and burden of prosthetic joint infections. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2014, 69, i5–i10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Alt, V.; Szymski, D.; Rupp, M.; Fontalis, A.; Vaznaisiene, D.; Marais, L.C.; Wagner, C.; Walter, N.; Clauss, M.; Ferrari, M.C.; et al. The health-economic burden of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections in Europe: A comprehensive analysis following primary arthroplasty. Bone Jt. Open 2025, 6, 298–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. DeBiase, J.M. A Clinical Review of Prosthetic Joint Infections. Med. Clin. 2025, 109, 615–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Liu, J.; Daher, M.; Gilreath, N.; Barrett, C.; Cohen, E.; Antoci, V. A Comparison of In-vitro Staphylococcus aureus Growth on Rough and Smooth Titanium Surfaces. Hip Pelvis 2025, 37, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Carlson, Ä.S.; Lidgren, L.; Lindberg, L. Prophylactic antibiotics against early and late deep infections after total hip replacements. Acta Orthop. Scand. 1977, 48, 405–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Tyllianakis, M.E.; Karageorgos, A.C.; Marangos, M.N.; Saridis, A.G.; Lambiris, E.E. Antibiotic prophylaxis in primary hip and knee arthroplasty: Comparison between cefuroxime and two specific antistaphylococcal agents. J. Arthroplast. 2010, 25, 1078–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Crawford, T.; Rodvold, K.A.; Solomkin, J.S. Vancomycin for surgical prophylaxis? Clin. Infect. Dis. 2012, 54, 1474–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Symonds, T.; Parkinson, B.; Hazratwala, K.; McEwen, P.; Wilkinson, M.; Grant, A. Use of regional administration of prophylactic antibiotics in total knee arthroplasty. ANZ J. Surg. 2018, 88, 848–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Feder, O.I.; Yeroushalmi, D.; Lin, C.C.; Galetta, M.S.; Meftah, M.; Lajam, C.M.; Slover, J.D.; Schwarzkopf, R.; Bosco, J.A.; Macaulay, W.B. Incomplete Administration of Intravenous Vancomycin Prophylaxis is Common and Associated with Increased Infectious Complications After Primary Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2021, 36, 2951–2956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Young, S.W.; Zhang, M.; Freeman, J.T.; Vince, K.G.; Coleman, B. Higher Cefazolin Concentrations with Intraosseous Regional Prophylaxis in TKA. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2013, 471, 244–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Viswanathan, V.K.; Patralekh, M.K.; Iyengar, K.P.; Jain, V.K. Intraosseous regional antibiotic prophylaxis in total joint arthroplasty (TJA): Systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma 2024, 57, 102553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yu, M.; Wei, Z.; Yang, X.; Xu, Y.; Zhu, W.; Weng, X.; Feng, B. Safety and effectiveness of intraosseous regional prophylactic antibiotics in total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2024, 144, 4233–4245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lei, X.; Xiang, J.; Yang, H.; Bao, H.; Zhu, Z.; Luo, H. Intraosseous regional prophylactic antibiotics decrease the risk of infection in total knee arthroplasty compared with intravenous antibiotics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EFORT Open Rev. 2023, 8, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Miltenberg, B.; Ludwick, L.; Masood, R.; Menendez, M.E.; Moverman, M.A.; Pagani, N.R.; Puzzitiello, R.N.; Smith, E.L. Intraosseous Regional Administration of Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review. J. Arthroplast. 2023, 38, 769–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009, 339, b2535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Kim, S.Y.; Park, J.E.; Seo, H.J.; Lee, Y.J.; Jang, B.H.; Son, H.J.; Suh, H.S.; Shin, C.M. NECA’s Guidance for Undertaking Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Intervention; National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  19. Luo, D.; Wan, X.; Liu, J.; Tong, T. Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 2018, 27, 1785–1805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shi, J.; Luo, D.; Weng, H.; Zeng, X.; Lin, L.; Chu, H.; Tong, T. Optimally estimating the sample standard deviation from the five-number summary. Res. Synth. Methods 2020, 11, 641–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Shi, J.; Luo, D.; Wan, X.; Liu, Y.; Liu, J.; Bian, Z.; Tong, T. Detecting the skewness of data from the five-number summary and its application in meta-analysis. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 2023, 32, 1338–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wan, X.; Wang, W.; Liu, J.; Tong, T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2014, 14, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Young, S.W.; Zhang, M.; Freeman, J.T.; Mutu-Grigg, J.; Pavlou, P.; Moore, G.A. The Mark Coventry Award: Higher Tissue Concentrations of Vancomycin with Low-dose Intraosseous Regional Versus Systemic Prophylaxis in TKA: A Randomized Trial. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2014, 472, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Chin, S.J.; Moore, G.A.; Zhang, M.; Clarke, H.D.; Spangehl, M.J.; Young, S.W. The AAHKS Clinical Research Award: Intraosseous Regional Prophylaxis Provides Higher Tissue Concentrations in High BMI Patients in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Trial. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, S13–S18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Young, S.W.; Zhang, M.; Moore, G.A.; Pitto, R.P.; Clarke, H.D.; Spangehl, M.J. The John, N. Insall Award: Higher Tissue Concentrations of Vancomycin Achieved with Intraosseous Regional Prophylaxis in Revision TKA: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2018, 476, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Spangehl, M.J.; Clarke, H.D.; Moore, G.A.; Zhang, M.; Probst, N.E.; Young, S.W. Higher Tissue Concentrations of Vancomycin Achieved with Low-Dose Intraosseous Injection Versus Intravenous Despite Limited Tourniquet Duration in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Trial. J. Arthroplast. 2022, 37, 857–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Harper, K.D.; Park, K.J.; Brozovich, A.A.; Sullivan, T.C.; Serpelloni, S.; Taraballi, F.; Incavo, S.J.; Clyburn, T.A. Otto Aufranc Award: Intraosseous Vancomycin in Total Hip Arthroplasty—Superior Tissue Concentrations and Improved Efficiency. J. Arthroplast. 2023, 38, S11–S15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhang, J.; Chen, G.; Yu, X.; Liu, Y.; Li, Z.; Zhang, X.; Zhong, Q.; Xu, R. Higher cefazolin concentrations in synovial fluid with intraosseous regional prophylaxis in knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2024, 144, 4069–4075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wininger, A.E.; Gurusamy, P.; Sullivan, T.C.; Serpelloni, S.; Taraballi, F.; Park, K.J.; Brown, T.S. Intraosseous Versus Intravenous Vancomycin in Tourniquetless Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Trial. J. Arthroplast. 2024, 39, S224–S228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Harper, K.D.; Lambert, B.S.; O’dOwd, J.; Sullivan, T.; Incavo, S.J. Clinical outcome evaluation of intraosseous vancomycin in total knee arthroplasty. Arthroplast. Today 2020, 6, 220–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Parkinson, B.M.; McEwen, P.M.; Wilkinson, M.M.; Hazratwala, K.M.; Hellman, J.B.; Kan, H.; McLean, A.M.; Panwar, Y.M.; Doma, K.P.; Grant, A.B.; et al. Intraosseous Regional Prophylactic Antibiotics Decrease the Risk of Prosthetic Joint Infection in Primary TKA: A Multicenter Study. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2021, 479, 2504–2512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Klasan, A.; Patel, C.K.; Young, S.W. Intraosseous Regional Administration of Vancomycin in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Does Not Increase the Risk of Vancomycin-Associated Complications. J. Arthroplast. 2021, 36, 1633–1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Park, K.J.; Chapleau, J.; Sullivan, T.C.; Clyburn, T.A.; Incavo, S.J. 2021 Chitranjan, S. Ranawat Award: Intraosseous vancomycin reduces periprosthetic joint infection in primary total knee arthroplasty at 90-day follow-up. Bone Jt. J. 2021, 103-B, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. McNamara, C.A.; Wininger, A.E.; Sullivan, T.C.; Brown, T.S.; Clyburn, T.A.; Incavo, S.J.; Park, K.J. The AAHKS Best Podium Presentation Research Award: Intraosseous Vancomycin Reduces the Rate of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2025, 40, S28–S32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Lachiewicz, P.F. Intraosseous Vancomycin May Not Be Helpful in Aseptic Revision Knee Arthroplasty: A Single-Surgeon Consecutive Case Series. J. Arthroplast. 2023, 38, S281–S283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Christopher, Z.K.; Pulicherla, N.; Iturregui, J.M.; Brinkman, J.C.; Spangehl, M.J.; Clarke, H.D.; Bingham, J.S. Low Risk of Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty with Intraosseous Vancomycin. J. Arthroplast. 2024, 39, S305–S309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hill, C.; Mazas, F.; Flamant, R.; Evrard, J. Prophylactic cefazolin versus placebo in total hip replacement. Report of a multicentre double-blind randomised trial. Lancet 1981, 317, 795–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Doyon, F.; Evrard, J.; Mazas, F.; Hill, C. Long-term results of prophylactic cefazolin versus placebo in total hip replacement. Lancet 1987, 329, 860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nickinson, R.S.J.; Board, T.N.; Gambhir, A.K.; Porter, M.L.; Kay, P.R. The microbiology of the infected knee arthroplasty. Int. Orthop. 2010, 34, 505–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. McNamara, D.R.; Steckelberg, J.M. Vancomycin. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2005, 13, 89–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Catanzano, A.; Phillips, M.; Dubrovskaya, Y.; Hutzler, L.; Bosco, J. The standard one gram dose of vancomycin is not adequate prophylaxis for MRSA. Iowa Orthop. J. 2014, 34, 111–117. [Google Scholar]
Medicina 61 01750 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Medicina 61 01750 g001
Medicina 61 01750 g002
Figure 2. Risk of bias according to ROB-2 in RCTs [11,23,24,25,26,27,28,29].
Figure 2. Risk of bias according to ROB-2 in RCTs [11,23,24,25,26,27,28,29].
Medicina 61 01750 g002
Medicina 61 01750 g003
Figure 3. Risk of bias according to ROBINS-I V2 tool in observational studies [30,31,32,33,34].
Figure 3. Risk of bias according to ROBINS-I V2 tool in observational studies [30,31,32,33,34].
Medicina 61 01750 g003
Medicina 61 01750 g004
Figure 4. Forest plot comparing vancomycin concentration between IO and IV antibiotic prophylaxis groups: (A) in bone tissue; (B) in fat tissue; (C) in serum [23,24,25,26,29].
Figure 4. Forest plot comparing vancomycin concentration between IO and IV antibiotic prophylaxis groups: (A) in bone tissue; (B) in fat tissue; (C) in serum [23,24,25,26,29].
Medicina 61 01750 g004
Medicina 61 01750 g005
Figure 5. Forest plot comparing prosthesis joint infection (PJI) rate between IO and IV antibiotic prophylaxis groups [30,31,32,33,34].
Figure 5. Forest plot comparing prosthesis joint infection (PJI) rate between IO and IV antibiotic prophylaxis groups [30,31,32,33,34].
Medicina 61 01750 g005
Medicina 61 01750 g006
Figure 6. Forest plot comparing prosthesis joint infection (PJI) rate stratified by causative pathogens between IO and IV antibiotic prophylaxis groups [31,33,34].
Figure 6. Forest plot comparing prosthesis joint infection (PJI) rate stratified by causative pathogens between IO and IV antibiotic prophylaxis groups [31,33,34].
Medicina 61 01750 g006
Medicina 61 01750 g007
Figure 7. Forest plot comparing the incidence rate of acute kidney injury (AKI) between IO and IV antibiotic prophylaxis groups [32,33,34].
Figure 7. Forest plot comparing the incidence rate of acute kidney injury (AKI) between IO and IV antibiotic prophylaxis groups [32,33,34].
Medicina 61 01750 g007
Table 1. Main characteristics of the included studies.
Table 1. Main characteristics of the included studies.
StudyYearDesignIO IV
NumberMean
Age		Female (%)Average BMITourniquet Time (min)Minimum Follow-Up (Months)NumberMean
Age		Female (%)Average BMITourniquet Time (min)Minimum Follow-Up (Months)
Young et al. [11]2013RCT1171.845.5%27.784121165.363.6%29.18212
(A) Young et al. [23]2014RCT1070.850%32.2105-1071.490%34.899-
(B) Young et al. [23]2014RCT1071.760%30102-
Chin et al. [24]2018RCT116636.4%41.1For entire procedure6116345.5%40.1For entire procedure6
Young et al. [25]2018RCT106850%33129-106970%32126-
(A) Harper et al. [30]2020Cohort R1006753%32+1.87 min than IV31006760%32-3
(B) Harper et al. [30]2020Cohort R196653%32-3296959%32-3
Parkinson et al. [31]2021Cohort R7256752%31.5At least 30 min1211816749%31.3At least 30 min12
Klasan et al. [32]2021Cohort R30167.758.5%31.8-1233168.757.1%31.4-12
Park et al. [33]2021Cohort R44867.458.6%32.0+2 min than IV357266.757.7%32.5-3
Spangehl et al. [26]2022RCT126941.7%3225-126858.3%3315-
Harper et al. [27]2023RCT1067.930%27.9-31067.320%27.4-3
Lachiewicz et al. [35]2023Cohort P206710%34.4-3------
Zhang et al. [28]2024RCT3068.980%25,975-3067.876.7%25.6--
Wininger et al. [29]2024RCT106970%29.403106750%3103
Christopher et al. [36]2024Cohort R1176853%30.2-12------
McNamara et al. [34]2025Cohort R3336766.4%32.766.333866658.833.266.23
R = retrospective study; P = prospective study
Table 2. Outcomes related to antibiotic concentrations and complication in included studies.
Table 2. Outcomes related to antibiotic concentrations and complication in included studies.
StudyYearOperationIO IV
DosageBone
(μg/g)		Fat
(μg/g)		Serum (μg/mL)ComplicationDosageBone
(μg/g)		Fat
(μg/g)		Serum
(μg/mL)		Complication
Young et al. [11]2013TKA1 g Cefazolin130186-No1 g Cefazolin11.410.6-No
(A) Young et al. [23]2014TKA250 mg Vancomycin1614-No1 g Vancomycin4.03.2-No
(B) Young et al. [23]2014TKA500 mg Vancomycin3844-1 DVT
Chin et al. [24]2018TKA500 mg Vancomycin34.339.31.81 PE15 mg/kg Vancomycin6.14.416.6No
Young et al. [25]2018Aseptic
rTKA		500 mg Vancomycin6318-No1 g Vancomycin7.13.6-No
Spangehl et al. [26]2022TKA500 mg Vancomycin25.340.34.9No15 mg/kg Vancomycin8.6618.9No
Harper et al. [27]2023THA500 mg Vancomycin130.9-5.8No15 mg/kg Vancomycin68-21No
Zhang et al. [28]2024TKA2 g Cefazolin-247.9-No2 g Cefazolin-11.4-No
Wininger et al. [29]2024TKA500 mg Vancomycin66.2-7.8015 mg/kg Vancomycin61-19.60
Table 3. Outcomes related to PJI rate and complication in included studies.
Table 3. Outcomes related to PJI rate and complication in included studies.
StudyYearOperationIO IV
DosagePJI Rate (%)ComplicationDosagePJI Rate (%)Complication
(A) Harper et al. [30]2020TKA500 mg Vancomycin0015 mg/kg Vancomycin01 DVT
(B) Harper et al. [30]2020rTKA500 mg Vancomycin5.3No15 mg/kg Vancomycin3.4No
Parkinson et al. [31]2021TKA1 g Cefazolin(46%) or 500 mg Vancomycin (54%)0.1No2 g Cefazolin1.4No
Klasan et al. [32]2021TKA500 mg Vancomycin0.3AKI: 3.0%3 × 1 g Cefazolin0AKI: 5.0%
Park et al. [33]2021TKA500 mg Vancomycin0.22No15 mg/kg Vancomycin1.5No
Lachiewicz et al. [35]2023Aseptic rTKA500 mg Vancomycin15%No---
Christopher et al. [36]2024Aseptic rTKA500 mg Vancomycin0.88%No---
McNamara et al. [34]2025Aseptic rTKA500 mg Vancomycin0.9DVT: 1.2%
PE: 0%
AKI: 2.7%		15 mg/kg Vancomycin3.1DVT: 1.8%
PE: 0.3%
AKI: 2.9%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, S.; Kang, J.; Moon, Y.; Hong, J.; Kim, H.; Jo, S. Efficacy and Safety of Intraosseous Versus Intravenous Antibiotic in Primary and Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicina 2025, 61, 1750. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61101750

AMA Style

Lee S, Kang J, Moon Y, Hong J, Kim H, Jo S. Efficacy and Safety of Intraosseous Versus Intravenous Antibiotic in Primary and Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicina. 2025; 61(10):1750. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61101750

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Sunwoo, Jiyun Kang, Yonggyun Moon, Jaeyoung Hong, Hyoungtae Kim, and Suenghwan Jo. 2025. "Efficacy and Safety of Intraosseous Versus Intravenous Antibiotic in Primary and Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Medicina 61, no. 10: 1750. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61101750

APA Style

Lee, S., Kang, J., Moon, Y., Hong, J., Kim, H., & Jo, S. (2025). Efficacy and Safety of Intraosseous Versus Intravenous Antibiotic in Primary and Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicina, 61(10), 1750. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61101750

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop