Clinical effectiveness of antibiotic-impregnated cement spacers for the treatment of infected implants of the hip joint

Simple and cost-effective way to make mobile antibiotic cement spacer: hand-made silicone mold

BACKGROUND

Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is considered the most common approach for the management of prosthetic joint infections. There has been plentiful evidence to support the superiority of the mobile spacers over the static ones. Unfortunately, articulating options are not available in our low-resource environment, which motivated us to come up with an affordable way to create a mobile cement spacer. After experimenting with a variety of materials and producing methods, we realized that silicone is a favorable material for mold building and established a simple process of making a handmade silicone mold. We demonstrate the clinical outcomes of three prosthetic joint infections by using these spacers in the hope of spreading the idea to our colleagues who work in the circumstances of a developing country. Construction of the spacer molds: The molds, consisting of two parts, were shaped by using high viscosity addition silicone (elite HD+ putty soft, Zhermack SpA, Italy) as material, and previously removed implants as template. They were sterilized using ethylene oxide treatment before being ready for casting antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacer.

CASE REPORT

Three cases of prosthetic infection were treated with two-stage revision, using antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer cast in hand-made silicone molds. We sought to determine intraoperative complications, postoperative range of motion, and functional scores. All the patients were regularly followed up to identify fractures or dislocation of the spacer, and reinfection.

RESULTS

At the end of the follow-up, all three patients had the infection eradicated. The three patients could sit comfortably with bent knees, walk with partial weight-bearing, and achieve 75-80 degrees of knee flexion in the first week after surgery. Follow-up X-rays revealed no fractures or dislocation in any of the spacers.

CONCLUSION

Silicone molds offer a simple and cost-effective alternative to costly commercial products in producing articulating spacers. Treating infected joints arthroplasty with these spacers allows for early motion and partial weight bearing and improves patient satisfaction and life quality before reimplantation without significant complications.

Mechanical complications of hip spacers: a systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Temporary spacers used in the staged revision of a hip prosthetic joint infection (PJI) have been associated with several mechanical complications with very variable reported general complications rates up to 73%. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the mechanical complications associated with hip antibiotic-loaded spacers when treating periprosthetic hip PJI.

METHODS

Through an electronic systematic search of PubMed, articles reporting mechanical complications of spacers used in the treatment of hip PJI were reviewed. Dislocations, spacer fracture, femoral fractures, and acetabular lysis rates were evaluated.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included. Standardized molded spacers had a significantly higher weighted mean of total mechanical complication rates (37.2%) when compared to standardized preformed spacers (13.8%, p = 0.039), while no significant difference was found between molded spacers and manually shaped spacers. Spacer dislocation was the most frequent complication. No significant difference in mechanical complication rate was found between spacers with and without any metallic component.

CONCLUSIONS

Spacer placement in chronic PJI of the hip with bone and soft-tissue defects is challenging and bears a high risk of mechanical failures and progressive bone loss during the interim period. A careful patient selection for spacer implantation is mandatory.

Articulating spacers: what are available and how to utilize them?

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most devastating complication following total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and is posing a global healthcare challenge as the demand for TJA mounts. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty with the placement of antibiotic-loaded spacers has been shown to be efficacious against chronic PJI. This study aimed to review the key concepts, types, and outcome evaluations of articulating spacers in the two-stage exchange for PJI. Previous studies indicated that articulating spacers have been widely used due to better functional improvement and a comparable infection control rate relative to static spacers. Several types of articulating spacers are reportedly available, including hand-made spacers, spacers fashioned from molds, commercially preformed spacers, spacers with additional metal or polyethylene elements, new or autoclaved prosthesis, custom-made articulating spacers, and 3D printing-assisted spacers. However, limited evidence suggested no significant difference in clinical outcomes among the different subtypes of articulating spacers. Surgeons should be familiar with different treatment strategies when using various spacers to know which is the most appropriate.

Clinical Outcomes After Stage-One Antibiotic Coated Molded Hip Spacer

BACKGROUND

Two-stage exchange remains the gold standard for managing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We evaluated the outcomes of patients treated with a specific molded articulating antibiotic hip spacer for PJI at a tertiary referral center.

METHODS

An institutional database was retrospectively queried for patients who underwent implantation of spacer between 2009-2019. Patient demographics and clinical outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

We identified 88 patients at an average age of 60.4 years who received a spacer implant, with an average of 4.2 years follow-up (standard deviation [SD] 2.5 years). A total of 34 patients (38.6%) had a "clean" two-stage course with successful reimplantation and no evidence of infection at 1-year follow-up. The remaining patients (61.4%) required 3.67 (±0.52) additional surgeries. Overall reimplantation rate was 72%. Causative bacterial agents included MSSA (n = 22), MRSA (n = 16), coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (n = 14), and polymicrobial (n = 12). Regarding complications, there were 13 (15%) dislocations, 16 (18%) periprosthetic fractures, 8 (9%) bent/fractured stems, and 16 (18%) patients had clinically significant subsidence. Patients with previous extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) experienced higher rates of bent/broken spacer stems (25% vs 3.1%; P = .006) periprosthetic fractures (37.5% vs 10.9%; P = .010), and dislocations (37.5% vs 6.2%; P = .001). The rate of infection clearance was lower in the prior ETO cohort (26.6% vs 54.2%; P = .029).

CONCLUSION

We report outcomes in patients who underwent implantation of a specific molded articulating hip spacer at our institution. Infection eradication was roughly in line with published series of hip PJI treatment. There was a high rate of mechanical complications, especially in those patients who required an ETO.

Randomized Trial of Static and Articulating Spacers for Treatment of the Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this randomized clinical trial is to compare perioperative and postoperative variables between static and articulating spacers for the treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) complicating total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

Fifty-two patients undergoing resection arthroplasty as part of a 2-stage exchange for PJI at 3 centers were randomized to either a static (n = 23) or articulating spacer (n = 29). The primary endpoint was operative time of the second-stage reimplantation and power analysis determined that 22 patients per cohort were necessary to detect a 20-minute difference. Seven patients were lost to follow-up, 4 were never reimplanted, and one died before discharge after reimplantation. Forty patients were followed for a mean 3.2 years (range 2.0-7.1).

RESULTS

There were no differences in operative time at second-stage reimplantation (143 minutes static vs 145 minutes articulating, P = .499). Length of hospital stay was longer in the static cohort after stage 1 (8.6 vs 5.4 days, P = .006) and stage 2 (6.3 vs 3.6 days, P < .001). Although it did not reach statistical significance with the numbers available for study, nearly twice as many patients in the static cohort were discharged to an extended care facility after stage 1 (65% vs 30%, P = .056).

CONCLUSION

This randomized trial demonstrated that the outcomes of static and articulating spacers are similar in the treatment of THA PJI undergoing 2-stage exchange arthroplasty. The significantly longer length of hospital stay associated with the use of static spacers may have important economic implications for the health care system.

Current actual success rate of the two-stage exchange arthroplasty strategy in chronic hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection

AIMS

The success rates of two-stage revision arthroplasty for infection have evolved since their early description. The implementation of internationally accepted outcome criteria led to the readjustment of such rates. However, patients who do not undergo reimplantation are usually set aside from these calculations. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of two-stage revision arthroplasty when considering those who do not undergo reimplantation, and to investigate the characteristics of this subgroup.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with chronic hip or knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) treated with two-stage revision between January 2010 and October 2018, with a minimum follow-up of one year, were included. Variables including demography, morbidity, microbiology, and outcome were collected. The primary endpoint was the eradication of infection. Patients who did not undergo reimplantation were analyzed in order to characterize this subgroup better.

RESULTS

A total of 162 chronic PJIs were included in the study. After a mean follow-up of 57.3 months (12.1 to 115.7), 18 patients (11.1%) did not undergo reimplantation, due either to medical issues (10), the patient's choice (4), or death (4). When only considering those who underwent reimplantation, the success rate was 80.6%. However, when those who did not undergo reimplantation were included, the success rate dropped to 71.6%. Advanced age, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≥ III, McPherson's C host, and Gram-negative related PJI were independent risk factors for retention of the spacer. The mortality was higher in the non-reimplanted group.

CONCLUSION

The real success rate of two-stage revision may not be as high as previously reported. The exclusion of patients who do not undergo reimplantation resulted in a 9% overestimation of the success rate in this series. Many comorbidity-related risk factors for retention of the spacer were identified, as well as higher death rates in this group. Efforts should be made to optimize these patients medically in order to increase reimplantation and success rates, while decreasing mortality. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1682-1688.

The results of screw augmentation of acetabular cement spacers for the treatment of periprosthetic hip joint infection

Introduction

Prosthesis of antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement (PROSTALAC) is widely used in two-stage revision arthroplasty in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA). In our institution, we encountered several cases of acetabular cement spacer dislodgement. The aim of this study was to compare the results of two-stage revision arthroplasties with antibiotic-loaded cement spacers with or without screws on the acetabulum for PJI.

Patients and methods

This retrospective study included 44 patients who underwent a two-stage revision THA for PJI from June 2007 to May 2017. We divided the patients into two groups: group 1 consisted of 21 patients (21 hips) who underwent two-stage revision arthroplasty with screw augmentation, while group 2 consisted of 23 patients (23 hips) who underwent the same surgery without screw augmentation at the acetabular cement spacer. We compared the migration and dislodgement of the acetabular cement spacer between the two groups.

Results

Before the second-stage surgery, there was less vertical migration of the cement spacer in group 1 compared to group 2 (1.2 mm vs 3.1 mm, p < 0.001). There was also less medial migration of the cement spacer in group 1 (0.6 mm vs 1.6 mm, p = 0.001). After the first stage, the mean Harris Hip score was significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2 (75 vs 65, p = 0.033). Cement spacer rotation or total movement out of the acetabular area occurred in six patients, all in group 2. After first stage reinfection occurred in two patients, one in each group.

Conclusions

Screw augmentation to the acetabulum in the first-stage surgery provides better stability of acetabular antibiotic cement spacers without increasing reinfection rate.

Single vs 2-Stage Revision for the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most devastating complications following total joint arthroplasty, accounting for a projected 10,000 revision surgeries per year by 2030. Chronic PJI is complicated by the presence of bacterial biofilm, requiring removal of components, thorough debridement, and administration of antibiotics for effective eradication. Chronic PJI is currently managed with single-stage or 2-stage revision surgery. To date, there are no randomized, prospective studies available evaluating eradication rates and functional outcomes between the 2 techniques. In this review, both treatment options are described with the most current literature to guide effective surgical decision-making that is cost-effective while decreasing patient morbidity.

[Research progress of two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection after hip and knee arthroplasties]

Objective

To summarize the research progress of two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after hip and knee arthroplasties.

Methods

The related literature on two-stage revision for PJI was summarized, and the new progress in the choice of spacers, systemic antibiotic therapy, and risk factors were analyzed.

Results

Two-stage revision is a common way to treat infection after hip and knee arthroplasties. The types of spacers used in the one-stage operation are diverse and each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Non-articular spacers are mainly used for the patients with poor soft tissue conditions around the joints and severe bone defects. But the joint mobility is not good after the placement of the spacer. Articular spacers can restore the affected joint movement after operation, which is beneficial to the joint mobility after two-stage operation. The use of antibiotics is an indispensable part of the treatment process, and the effectiveness of short-term antibiotic treatment is similar to long-term treatment. Identifying the relevant risk factors that influence the prognosis of the two-stage revision can help preoperative management and reduce the recurrence rate of infection.

Conclusion

There are still controversies about the choice of spacers and systemic antibiotic therapy during the two-stage revision and treatment of PJI. The factors affecting the prognosis of the two-stage revision need to be explored and the further high-quality research is needed.

Partial 2-Stage Exchange for Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Updated Report

BACKGROUND

Management of an infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) is challenging. The eradication of infection as well as complications of component removal must all be considered. This study is an update on previous reports of treating periprosthetic infection of the hip with a partial 2-stage exchange with retention of the femoral component.

METHODS

A retrospective review of our practice's arthroplasty registry from 2000 to 2018 revealed 41 hips with 2-year minimum follow-up that were treated with a 2-stage partial exchange for an infected THA. All first-stage procedures allowed an articulating construct with 1 of 3 variations: cemented constrained liner (13 hips), StageOne Hip Cement Spacer Mold (14 hips), or an antibiotic polymethylmethacrylate head molded from a bulb syringe (14 hips). Of 41 cases, 34 were culture positive, with 3 cases having methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 5.5 years (range, 1.5-18.5 years). The second-stage reimplantation was accomplished in 39 of the 41 hips (95%) at a mean interval of 9.2 weeks (range, 5-9 weeks). Two patients underwent repeat radical debridement with removal of all components before reimplantation for persistent clinical evidence of infection. Thirty-three of the 41 hips (81%) were infection free at most recent follow-up. The mean postoperative Harris hip score at most recent evaluation was 63.6 (range, 24-100).

CONCLUSION

Eradication of periprosthetic joint infections, while minimizing patient morbidity, continues to be a challenge. Partial 2-stage exchange may be considered in cases where removal of a well-fixed femoral component may result in significant bony destruction.

Two-Stage Revision of Total Hip Arthroplasty for Infection Is Associated with a High Rate of Dislocation

BACKGROUND

Two-stage exchange is the most common form of treatment of chronic infection following total hip arthroplasty (THA). We examined the prevalence of, and risk factors associated with, hip instability following 2-stage exchange as well as the fate of reimplanted hip prostheses that dislocated.

METHODS

Data on 515 2-stage exchange THAs performed between 2000 and 2014 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Risk factors for instability as well as postoperative reoperations and revisions were analyzed. The impact of dislocation on these outcomes was evaluated as well. The mean age at the time of reimplantation was 65 years, and the mean duration of follow-up was 5 years (range, 2 to 15 years).

RESULTS

Dislocation occurred in 52 hips following reimplantation (cumulative probability = 8.9% at 1 year). There was a higher risk of instability in women (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.8, p = 0.038) and in those who had a history of dislocation prior to the 2-stage revision (HR = 5.1, p < 0.001). Younger age, body mass index, number of previous operations, spacer type, surgical approach, use of a constrained liner, femoral head diameter, and persistent or recurrent infection were not found to be significant risk factors. Patients with an absent or ununited greater trochanter or abductor deficiency also had a higher rate of dislocation (HR = 30, p < 0.001), as did patients who underwent reimplantation with a megaprosthesis (HR = 6.0, p < 0.001). The risk of additional reoperations (HR = 121, p < 0.001) and revision surgery (HR = 13, p < 0.001) was significantly higher in patients who experienced a dislocation after the 2-stage exchange.

CONCLUSIONS

Dislocation after 2-stage exchange THA continues to be a major concern, with the 1-year cumulative probability found to be 9% in the present study. Female sex, a history of dislocation, an absent or ununited greater trochanter or abductor deficiency, and reimplantation with a megaprosthesis were identified as risk factors for dislocation. There is a remarkable 121-fold increase in the rate of reoperations and a 13-fold increase in the rate of revisions in hips that dislocated after 2-stage exchange THA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Two-Stage Revision Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Prosthetic Joint Infection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the diagnosis and treatment of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) with a focus on two-stage revision arthroplasty. The text will discuss different spacer constructs in total knee and total hip arthroplasty and will present clinical outcome data for these various options.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is no appreciable difference in infection eradication between mobile and static antibiotic spacers. Mobile spacers have shown improved knee range of motion after second-stage re-implantation. Two-stage revision arthroplasty is the gold standard treatment for PJI. The first stage involves removal of all components, cement, and compromised soft tissues with placement of an antibiotic-impregnated spacer. Spacer options include both mobile and static spacers. Mobile spacers offer maintenance of ambulation and joint range of motion between staged procedures and have shown to be as effective in eradicating infection as static spacers.

In vitro methods for the evaluation of antimicrobial surface designs

Bacterial adhesion and subsequent biofilm formation on biomedical implants and devices are a major cause of their failure. As systemic antibiotic treatment is often ineffective, there is an urgent need for antimicrobial biomaterials and coatings. The term "antimicrobial" can encompass different mechanisms of action (here termed "antimicrobial surface designs"), such as antimicrobial-releasing, contact-killing or non-adhesivity. Biomaterials equipped with antimicrobial surface designs based on different mechanisms of action require different in vitro evaluation methods. Available industrial standard evaluation tests do not address the specific mechanisms of different antimicrobial surface designs and have therefore been modified over the past years, adding to the myriad of methods available in the literature to evaluate antimicrobial surface designs. The aim of this review is to categorize fourteen presently available methods including industrial standard tests for the in vitro evaluation of antimicrobial surface designs according to their suitability with respect to their antimicrobial mechanism of action. There is no single method or industrial test that allows to distinguish antimicrobial designs according to all three mechanisms identified here. However, critical consideration of each method clearly relates the different methods to a specific mechanism of antimicrobial action. It is anticipated that use of the provided table with the fourteen methods will avoid the use of wrong methods for evaluating new antimicrobial designs and therewith facilitate translation of novel antimicrobial biomaterials and coatings to clinical use. The need for more and better updated industrial standard tests is emphasized.

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

European COST-action TD1305, IPROMEDAI aims to provide better understanding of mechanisms of antimicrobial surface designs of biomaterial implants and devices. Current industrial evaluation standard tests do not sufficiently account for different, advanced antimicrobial surface designs, yet are urgently needed to obtain convincing in vitro data for approval of animal experiments and clinical trials. This review aims to provide an innovative and clear guide to choose appropriate evaluation methods for three distinctly different mechanisms of antimicrobial design: (1) antimicrobial-releasing, (2) contact-killing and (3) non-adhesivity. Use of antimicrobial evaluation methods and definition of industrial standard tests, tailored toward the antimicrobial mechanism of the design, as identified here, fulfill a missing link in the translation of novel antimicrobial surface designs to clinical use.

Poor Prognosis of Patients Treated for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

The study by Gomez et al., "The Fate of Spacers in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection," evaluates the clinical course and success rate of treatment of periprosthetic joint infection with two-stage revision with spacer placement in the interim period. The current review critically analyzes the findings of this study and examines how these findings may influence patient care in the field of hip and knee replacement. Gomez et al. report sobering results of two-stage revision with spacer placement for periprosthetic joint infection. Nearly 20% of patients in their study who had a spacer placed never went on to get a new prosthesis and nearly 20% of those who did get a new prosthesis ultimately failed treatment. The authors reported a 7.5% mortality rate in the interstage period after resection arthroplasty. This study provides valuable information for counseling patients about the outcomes of treatment using spacers for infection after total joint arthroplasty. The results of this study also highlight the need for future investigation into better treatments for periprosthetic joint infections.

Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review

Background

The best surgical modality for treating chronic periprosthetic hip infections remains controversial, with a lack of randomised controlled studies. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the infection recurrence rate after a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange arthroplasty, and the rate of cemented versus cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic hip infections.

Methods

We searched for eligible studies published up to December 2015. Full text or abstract in English were reviewed. We included studies reporting the infection recurrence rate as the outcome of interest following single- or two-stage exchange arthroplasty, or both, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and appraised quality assessment.

Results

After study selection, 90 observational studies were included. The majority of studies were focused on a two-stage hip exchange arthroplasty (65 %), 18 % on a single-stage exchange, and only a 17 % were comparative studies. There was no statistically significant difference between a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange in terms of recurrence of infection in controlled studies (pooled odds ratio of 1.37 [95 % CI = 0.68-2.74, I² = 45.5 %]).

Similarly, the recurrence infection rate in cementless versus cemented single-stage hip exchanges failed to demonstrate a significant difference, due to the substantial heterogeneity among the studies.

Conclusion

Despite the methodological limitations and the heterogeneity between single cohorts studies, if we considered only the available controlled studies no superiority was demonstrated between a single- and two-stage exchange at a minimum of 12 months follow-up. The overalapping of confidence intervals related to single-stage cementless and cemented hip exchanges, showed no superiority of either technique.

Similar rate of infection eradication for functional articulating, prefabricated and custom-made spacers in 2-stage revision of the infected total hip: a literature review

BACKGROUND

2-stage revision with the use of an antibiotic-loaded interval spacer is therapy of choice in late periprosthetic joint infection for most surgeons. For the spacer, either a prefabricated, functional articulating or custom-made spacer can be used. Little is known about which type of spacer provides optimal outcome after 2-stage revision. The aim of this study was to determine which type of spacer provides the best results, when used in 2-stage revision of an infected THA.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature to analyse which type of interval spacer provides highest infection eradication rate and best functional outcome after a minimum 2 year follow-up. Exclusion criteria were follow-up of less than 2 years, single-stage revision, or 2-stage revision without use of a spacer.

RESULTS

25 studies were included. Infection eradication rate was similar with rates of 96%, 93% and 95% for the prefabricated-, functional articulating- and custom-made spacers respectively. Functional outcome was scarcely described. Postoperative HHS was 81, 90 and 83 respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Functional articulating spacers achieve a comparable rate of infection eradication in the treatment of periprosthetic hip joint infections as compared to preformed or custom-made antibiotic-loaded spacers. There is insufficient evidence concerning rehabilitation and functional outcome after 2-stage revision hip arthroplasty to advocate or discourage the use of either kind of interval spacer.

Influence of the cause of the revision on the outcome after revision knee arthroplasty with condylar constrained implant

INTRODUCTION

Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common procedure with varying results depending on the cause. Our objective was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes in patients undergoing aseptic revision versus revision due to prosthetic infection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 41 patients who underwent TKA revision with the same varus-valgus constrained implant. In all cases a clinical evaluation was performed including pain, range of motion (ROM), Knee Society Score (KSS), complications, as well as radiological study. A comparative analysis was performed on the pre- and postoperative results between septic and aseptic groups. The mean follow-up was 6 years.

RESULTS

ROM had a mean increase of 17 degrees (p<.01). KSS and functional KSS improved significantly postoperatively. In the radiological study, joint interline and limb alignment were restored in all cases. Radiolucencies were found in 36.5% of cases; however they were unrelated to the appearance of loosening of the implant. There were complications in 29.2% of cases, mostly related to the surgical wound. Mobility, KSS, KSS functional and satisfaction at follow-up were better in the septic group. Implant survival was 95% at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Revision arthroplasty with constrained varus-valgus implant is safe, and has successful mid-term results despite the cause of the replacement procedure.

The Fate of Spacers in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

Two-stage exchange arthroplasty remains the preferred method to treat periprosthetic joint infection. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical course of periprosthetic joint infection following resection arthroplasty and insertion of a spacer.

METHODS

Our institutional database was used to identify 504 cases of periprosthetic joint infection (326 knees and 178 hips) treated with resection arthroplasty and spacer insertion as part of a two-stage exchange arthroplasty. A review of the patient charts was performed to extract information relevant to the objectives of this study that included the details of the clinical course following resection arthroplasty.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up duration after initial spacer implantation was 56.2 months. Reimplantation occurred in the joints of 417 (82.7%) of 504 cases. Of these 417 cases, 329 (78.9%) had a minimum one-year follow-up, and 81.4% of these had successful treatment. The mean duration from resection arthroplasty to reimplantation was 4.2 months (range, 0.7 to 131.7 months). Sixty (11.9%) of the 504 joints required interim spacer exchange(s). Of the eighty-seven cases that did not undergo reimplantation, six (6.9%) required amputation, five (5.7%) underwent a Girdlestone procedure, four (4.6%) underwent arthrodesis, and seventy-two (82.8%) underwent spacer retention. Thirty-six patients died in the interstage period.

CONCLUSIONS

The commonly held belief that two-stage exchange arthroplasty carries a high success rate for the eradication of periprosthetic joint infection may need to be reexamined. A considerable number of patients undergoing the first stage of a two-stage procedure do not undergo a subsequent reimplantation for a variety of reasons or require an additional spacer exchange in the interim. Reports on the success of two-stage exchange should account for the mortality of these patients and for patients who never undergo reimplantation.

Two-Stage Revision Protocol in Multidrug Resistant Periprosthetic Infection Following Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Long Interval Between Stages

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 31 patients with periprosthetic hip infections attempting to evaluate the outcome of a two-stage revision protocol characterized by prolonged interim period (mean=9.2 months, range 8-12 months) prior to the final re-implantation. In 3 cases (9.6%) the 1st stage was repeated after a mean period of 12.3 weeks due to relapse of infection. Five spacer dislocations occurred, not affecting the final clinical outcome after reimplantation, as evaluated by the Harris Hip Score. No protrusions or additional acetabular bone loss was noticed. Our proposed protocol is a simple, safe, efficient and reproducible treatment approach that may be successfully utilized predominantly when dealing with multidrug resistant pathogens.

Are Preformed Articulating Spacers Superior To Surgeon-Made Articulating Spacers in the Treatment Of PJI in THA? A Literature Review

Background and Purpose:

Antibiotic-loaded cement spacers are typically manufactured by surgeons in the operating room. However, if the infecting organism is known preoperatively, the cement spacer can be fabricated (Spacer-G^® or the InterSpace^® Hip) in advance. It is unclear if preformed hip spacers are superior to surgeon-made hip spacers in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection following primary THA.

Methods:

A literature review of the peer-reviewed literature indexed by MEDLINE and Embase was performed to identify studies reporting the outcomes of preformed and surgeon-made hip spacers in the treatment of infection following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). A total of 43 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis to compare the reinfection rate, Harris Hip Score (HHS) and spacer complication rates between surgeon-made and preformed hip spacers.

Results and Interpretation:

The analyzed studies included a total number of 1631 infected THA cases (n=1027 surgeonmade; n=604 preformed spacers). We found similar reinfection rates (6.0% surgeon-made, and 5.5% preformed spacers) and similar mean HHS at latest follow-up after reimplantation (HHS=84.3 surgeon-made, and HHS=81.8 preformed spacers) between both groups. However, patients treated with a surgeon-made articulating spacer had a higher spacer fracture rate compared to preformed articulating spacer. The use of preformed articulating spacers in the treatment of infected THA is not superior to surgeon-made articulating spacers regarding infection control and functional outcomes. However, the use of surgeon-made antibiotic spacers increased the risk of spacer fracture.

Management of periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty using a custom made articulating spacer (CUMARS); the Exeter experience

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after THA is a major complication with an incidence of 1%-3%. We report our experiences with a technique using a custom-made articulating spacer (CUMARS) at the first of two-stage treatment for PJI. This technique uses widely available all-polyethylene acetabular components and the Exeter Universal stem, fixed using antibiotic loaded acrylic cement. Seventy-six hips were treated for PJI using this technique. Performed as the first of a two-stage procedure, good functional results were commonly seen, leading to postponing second stage indefinitely with retention of the CUMARS prosthesis in 34 patients. The CUMARS technique presents an alternative to conventional spacers, using readily available components that are well tolerated, allowing weight bearing and mobility, and achieving comparable eradication rates.

The fate of unplanned retention of prosthetic articulating spacers for infected total hip and total knee arthroplasty

Eighteen patients with periprosthetic joint infection (11 hips and 7 knees) treated by prosthetic articulating spacers retained their spacers and were followed up at an average of 43.8 months(range, 13-78 months). Fifteen patients maintained well-functioning spacers for an average of 42.7 months, of which 4 patients died with the spacers in situ at an average of 48.7 months. The mean Harris Hip Score and Knee Society knee and function scores of survivors were 92, 92, 88, respectively. Spacers were revised in 3 patients because of recurrent infection (n = 1) at 24 months and mechanical loosening (n = 2) at 74 and 50 months. Findings of this study suggest that a proportion of patients with unplanned retention of prosthetic spacers appear to function well up to 6 years without necessarily requiring further surgical intervention.

Two-stage revision arthroplasty for management of chronic periprosthetic hip and knee infection: techniques, controversies, and outcomes

In North America, two-stage revision arthroplasty is the treatment of choice for chronic periprosthetic infection of the hip and knee. Controversy exists regarding the diagnosis of persistent infection, cement spacer design, and duration of antibiotic therapy. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein tests have no clear cutoff values for detecting infection before reimplantation of hardware, and aspiration for microbial culture can yield false-negative results. Mobile spacers are as effective as static spacers for eradicating infection, but mobile spacers provide better interim function and may help to make the second stage of surgery technically easier. Some articulating spacer designs have fewer reports of spacer dislocation and fracture than do others. Although prolonged antibiotic therapy has been the standard of care for two-stage procedures, some have suggested that a short course of antibiotics is just as effective. When infection persists despite antibiotic therapy, the second stage of revision arthroplasty should be delayed until the first stage of the procedure is repeated.

Partial two-stage exchange for infected total hip arthroplasty: a preliminary report

BACKGROUND

One common approach to the infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) calls for a staged revision, including removal of all components. However, removal of well-fixed femoral components can result in bone loss and compromised fixation; it is not known whether it is effective to leave a well-fixed femoral component in situ, remove only the acetabular component, débride thoroughly, place a spacer, and delay reimplantation.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purposes of this study were to determine (1) the frequency of infection recurrence; (2) the frequency of death; and (3) the Harris hip scores of patients treated with a "two-stage partial exchange" approach.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis from 2000 through January 2011 revealed 19 patients with infected THA treated with partial two-stage exchange including complete acetabular component removal, aggressive soft tissue débridement, retention of the well-fixed femoral stem, placement of an antibiotic-laden cement femoral head on the trunnion of the retained stem, postoperative course of antibiotics, and delayed reimplantation. Indications for this treatment included those patients whose femoral component was determined to be well fixed and its removal would result in significant femoral bone loss and compromise of future fixation. During the study period, this represented 7% (19 of 262) of the patients whom we treated for a chronically infected THA. Minimum followup was 2 years (mean, 4 years; range, 2-11 years). None of the 19 patients in this series were lost to followup. We defined failure as recurrence of infection in the same hip or the use of long-term suppressive antibiotics.

RESULTS

Two patients (11%), both with prior failure of two-staged treatment of infection, failed secondary to recurrence of infection at an average of 3.3 years. There were no patient deaths within 90 days. The mean Harris hip score was 68 (range, 31-100; best score is 100).

CONCLUSIONS

Insofar as 89% of patients in this series were clinically free of infection at a minimum of 2 years, we believe partial two-stage exchange may represent an acceptable option for patients with infected THA when femoral component removal would result in significant bone loss and compromise of reconstruction. Further study is required on this approach.

Two-stage arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection: a systematic review of acute kidney injury, systemic toxicity and infection control

Periprosthetic infections of hip and knee joints are now treated by two-stage revision arthroplasty with an infection control rate of 91%. The present systematic review studied the reported incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) and infection recurrence from January 1989 to June 2012 to assess the risk-benefit ratio of antibiotic spacer use. Ten observational studies (n=544 patients) with clinical outcomes showed an average incidence of AKI of 4.8%. The average reported persistence or recurrence rate of infection was 11% during a follow-up period that ranged from 13 to 108 months. The risk-benefit ratio presently favors treatment although there appears to be higher complication rates and incidence of AKI than previously reported. Marked heterogeneity in practice and lack of detail in reporting precluded more robust quantitative synthesis. Clinicians need to be aware of the potential risk of AKI, particularly in high-risk patients; practice patterns for the use of antibiotic spacers need to be standardized.

Preformed antibiotic-loaded cement spacers for two-stage revision of infected total hip arthroplasty. Long-term results

Two-stage revision is the most widely accepted and performed intervention for chronically infected hip prosthesis and different interim spacers have been proposed. In recent years, antibiotic-loaded preformed spacers have become available on the market. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the long-term results of two-stage revision with preformed spacers and uncemented hip prosthesis for the treatment of septic hip prosthesis. From 2000 to 2010, 183 consecutive patients underwent two-stage revision of septic hip prosthesis, with a same protocol, including preformed antibiotic-loaded cement spacer and a cementless modular hip revision prosthesis and four to six weeks antibiotic administration. Clinical and radiologic assessment at a minimum follow-up of two years was performed. At a minimum two years follow-up, 10 patients (5.4%) had had an infection recurrence, four (2.2%) an aseptic loosening and four more required partial revision of the modular components of the prosthesis, because of hip instability/dislocation; 21 patients died or were lost to follow-up. Considering all the reasons for revision, survivorship at eleven years was 93.9%. Harris Hip Score improved from 29.1 ± 14.6 pre-operatively to 41.1 ± 15.9 after spacer implant and 81.7 ± 17.6 after hip revision. The main complications after spacer implant included: spacer dislocation (16.4%), intra-operative femoral fractures (2.7%), and thromboembolism (2.1%). Complications after hip revision were: instability/dislocation (4,3%), intra-operative femoral fractures (1.6%), and thromboembolism (3.3%). Two-stage revision of septic hip prosthesis with preformed antibiotic-loaded spacers and cementless hip prosthesis provides satisfactory long-term results, with reduced complications.

Two-stage treatment of hip periprosthetic joint infection is associated with a high rate of infection control but high mortality

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a devastating complication. Reported rates of infection control range from 80% to 95% but mortality rates associated with treatment of infected THA are also substantial and we suspect underreported.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

For patients selected for two-stage treatment of infected THA we therefore determined (1) mortality; (2) rate of reimplantation; and (3) rate of reinfection.

METHODS

We identified 202 patients (205 hips) with infected primary or revision THA treated with a two-stage protocol between 1996 and 2009 in our prospectively collected practice registry. Patients underwent two-stage treatment for infection, including removal of all implants and foreign material with implantation of an antibiotic-laden cement spacer in the first stage followed by intravenous culture-specific antibiotics for a minimum of 6 weeks. Second-stage reimplantation was performed if erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein were trending toward normal and the wound was well healed. Thirteen patients (13 hips) were lost to followup before 24 months. The minimum followup in surviving patients was 24 months or failure (average, 53 months; range, 24-180 months).

RESULTS

Fourteen patients (7%; 14 hips) died before reimplantation and two were not candidates because of medical comorbidities. The 90-day mortality rate after the first-stage débridement was 4% (eight patients). Of the 186 patients (189 hips) who underwent reimplantation, 157 (83%) achieved control of the infection. Including all patients who underwent the first stage, survival and infection control after two-stage reimplantation was 76%.

CONCLUSION

Two-stage treatment of deep infection in primary and revision THA is associated with substantial mortality and a substantial failure rate from both reinfection and inability to perform the second stage.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Mating of a PROSTALAC spacer with an intramedullary nail for reconstruction of an infected interprosthetic femoral shaft fracture: a case report

Reconstruction for concurrent infection of an ipsilateral total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a challenge. We report a 2-stage reconstruction of a THA for chronic infection of both the THA and TKA with severe femoral bone loss secondary to interprosthetic fractures. The reconstruction involved using a custom-made, temporary, antibiotic-impregnated PROSTALAC spacer mated with an intramedullary nail. The acetabulum was then exposed and the necrotic cartilage was removed and curetted. The acetabulum was reamed to accept a PROSTALAC acetabular shell. The shell was cemented into the acetabulum with antibiotic cement. The custom-made spacer was then inserted distally first into the tibia. The distal end of the intramedullary nail was interlocked with a bicortical bolt to minimise nail rotation. Antibiotic-impregnated cement was moulded around the nail and spacer. The proximal end of the spacer was then reduced into the acetabular socket, and the joint was irrigated and the wound closed. A customised abduction brace was fitted, and partial weight bearing was allowed. Sufficient leg length, soft-tissue tension, and range of hip motion were restored, and a total femur and constrained liner was re-implanted 4 months later. Mating of an intramedullary nail with a PROSTALAC spacer is a viable reconstructive option.

Chronic infections in hip arthroplasties: comparing risk of reinfection following one-stage and two-stage revision: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Two-stage revision is regarded by many as the best treatment of chronic infection in hip arthroplasties. Some international reports, however, have advocated one-stage revision. No systematic review or meta-analysis has ever compared the risk of reinfection following one-stage and two-stage revisions for chronic infection in hip arthroplasties.

METHODS

The review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Relevant studies were identified using PubMed and Embase. We assessed studies that included patients with a chronic infection of a hip arthroplasty treated with either one-stage or two-stage revision and with available data on occurrence of reinfections. We performed a meta-analysis estimating absolute risk of reinfection using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We identified 36 studies eligible for inclusion. None were randomized controlled trials or comparative studies. The patients in these studies had received either one-stage revision (n = 375) or two-stage revision (n = 929). Reinfection occurred with an estimated absolute risk of 13.1% (95% confidence interval: 10.0%-17.1%) in the one-stage cohort and 10.4% (95% confidence interval: 8.5%-12.7%) in the two-stage cohort. The methodological quality of most included studies was considered low, with insufficient data to evaluate confounding factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results may indicate three additional reinfections per 100 reimplanted patients when performing a one-stage versus two-stage revision. However, the risk estimates were statistically imprecise and the quality of underlying data low, demonstrating the lack of clear evidence that two-stage revision is superior to one-stage revision among patients with chronically infected hip arthroplasties. This systematic review underscores the need for improvement in reporting and collection of high-quality data and for large comparative prospective studies on this issue.

Staged custom, intramedullary antibiotic spacers for severe segmental bone loss in infected total hip arthroplasty

Introduction. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) infections with severe bone loss pose significant reconstructive challenges. We present our experience with two-stage hip reimplantation using an intramedullary, antibiotic-impregnated nail. Methods. Three patients with infected THA with severe proximal femoral bone loss (Mallory type IIIB or greater) were treated using a custom antibiotic spacer. Clinical outcomes and any complications were recorded. Average followup was 49 months from final reimplantation. Results. Mean age at spacer placement (stage 1) was 53 years. The mean Harris Hip Score at final followup was 80. Two patients had asymptomatic heterotopic ossification, and one patient had a 2 cm leg-length discrepancy. Conclusions. A custom intramedullary nail antibiotic spacer is a reliable option in the staged management of the infected THA with severe proximal femoral bone loss. Benefits of this technique include limb salvage with maintenance of leg length, soft tissue tension, and functional status.

Comparison of one and two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasty complicated by infection: a Markov expected-utility decision analysis

BACKGROUND

Two-stage revisions of total hip arthroplasties complicated by chronic infection result in reinfection rates that are lower than those following single-stage revisions but may also result in increased surgical morbidity. Using a decision analysis, we compared single-stage and two-stage revisions to determine which treatment modality resulted in greater quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

METHODS

A review of the literature on the treatment of patients with an infection at the site of a total hip arthroplasty provided probabilities; utility values for common postoperative health states were determined in a previously published study. With these data, we conducted a Markov cohort simulation decision analysis. Sensitivity analysis validated the model, and comparisons were made in terms of QALYs.

RESULTS

The twelve-month model favored direct-exchange revision over the two-stage approach, regardless of whether surgeon or patient-derived utilities were used (0.945 versus 0.896 and 0.897 versus 0.861 QALYs for the patient and surgeon models, respectively). Similar results were observed in a lifetime model with a ten-year life expectancy (7.853 versus 7.771, and 7.438 versus 7.362 QALYs, respectively). The findings were found to be robust in sensitivity analyses in which clinically relevant ranges of input variables were used.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis favored the direct-exchange arthroplasty over the two-stage approach. This study should be considered hypothesis-generating for future randomized controlled trials in which, ideally, health end points will be considered in addition to the eradication of infection.

The effect of endoskeleton on antibiotic impregnated cement spacer for treating deep hip infection

Backgrounds

A two-stage revision arthroplasty was suggested optimal treatment for deep infections in hip joint. The effect of endoskeleton of cement spacers on the interim function and infection control remains unclear.

Methods

From Jan. 2004 to Dec. 2007, we collected a prospective cohort of consecutive 34 patients who treated with two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty for deep infection of hip joint. In group 1, fifteen patients were treated by a novel design augmented with hip compression screw while nineteen patients were treated by traditional design in group 2.

Results

No fracture of cement spacer occurred in group 1 while 6 cases developed spacer failure in group 2. (p < 0.05) There were significant differences in bodily pain and general health perception between groups (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Patients being treated for deep infection of hip joint using cement spacer augmented with stronger endoskeleton have lower pain levels and better joint function between stages.

One-day antibiotic infusion for the prevention of postoperative infection following arthroplasty: a case control study

Intravenous antibiotics effectively reduce the prevalence of postoperative infection. However, Japanese orthopaedic surgeons have no consensus with regard to the optimal duration of prophylaxis. The aim of this study is to compare the outcome of one-day intravenous antibiotic administration with that of long-term intravenous antibiotic administration. Patients who underwent total hip or knee arthroplasty were divided into 2 groups to receive one of 2 prophylactic protocols retrospectively. Group A (223 patients) received intravenous antibiotics twice only on the day of surgery, whereas Group B (104 patients) received intravenous antibiotics for at least 3 days after surgery. We analyzed the wound infection rate and monitored liver and renal functions. None of these patients had a postoperative infection. No liver dysfunction and renal dysfunction were observed. One-day antibiotic infusion was as effective as long-term antibiotics in preventing infection after arthroplasty and achieved greater cost effectiveness.

Improved antibiotic impregnated cement prosthesis for treating deep hip infection: a novel design using hip compression screw

A 2-stage revision arthroplasty has been suggested as the optimal treatment for deep infections in the hip joint. Improvement of the surgical technique to increase the interim function is subject to investigation. From 2004 to 2007, we collected a cohort of 15 consecutive patients who were treated by a novel design augmented with a modified hip compression screw. No fracture of the cement spacer occurred. We believe the modified hip compression screw is a good alternative for the functional endoskeleton of an antibiotic loaded cement prosthesis in the treatment of deep hip infection.

Two-stage revision surgery for hip prosthesis infection using antibiotic-loaded porous hydroxyapatite blocks

BACKGROUND

Infection of a hip prosthesis is one of the most severe complications encountered in orthopedic practice. Two-stage reconstruction using an antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer has become a popular procedure for the treatment of this condition. However, there are some disadvantages with the use of antibiotic-loaded cement, including low biocompatibility, a very low release ratio, and the possibility of thermal damage to the antibiotic. We have developed an effective drug delivery system for osteomyelitis in which porous hydroxyapatite (HA) blocks are loaded with an antibiotic by the vacuum method. We report here a modification of this delivery system applied for the first stage of two-stage reconstruction surgery against infected hip prosthesis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eight consecutive patients who developed hip prosthesis infection underwent two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) using antibiotic-loaded porous HA blocks prepared by the vacuum method. Thorough debridement and insertion of antibiotic-loaded HA blocks was performed in the first stage, followed by conversion to THA after eradication of infection in the second stage.

RESULTS

The mean interval between the stages was 16.8 weeks. There were no complications related to the use of the antibiotic-loaded HA blocks. The patients were followed up for an average of 49 months with no evidence of recurrent infection. The mean Japanese Orthopedic Association hip score improved from 45.1 before surgery to 79.6 at the latest follow-up.

INTERPRETATION

This simple approach utilizing antibiotic-impregnated HA blocks prepared by the vacuum method is considered to be effective for treatment of hip prosthesis infection.

Septic versus aseptic hip revision: how different?

Background

The few available studies directly comparing aseptic and septic joint revision surgery report conflicting results. We investigated whether two-stage revision of septic hip prosthesis with a preformed antibiotic-loaded spacer and an uncemented prosthesis provides hip function and quality of life similar to those provided by aseptic revision surgery in the medium term, as well as the associated direct hospital costs.

Materials and methods

We prospectively evaluated the hip function (Harris hip score) and quality of life (WOMAC and SF-12 scores) of 80 patients who underwent one-stage revision for aseptic loosening (Group A, 40 patients) or two-stage revision for septic total hip prostheses (Group S, 40 patients). Patients were matched for gender, age, and bone loss. A preformed antibiotic-loaded cement spacer was used for two-stage revision, and uncemented modular prostheses were implanted at revision in both groups. The minimum follow-up was 2 years (average 4 years; range 2–6 years).

Results

We found no difference in infection recurrence or aseptic loosening rate in the two groups. Average Harris hip score increased similarly in both groups: from 19.1 to 74.0 in Group A versus 15.0–71.2 in Group S. Patient-reported quality-of-life questionnaires (SF-12 and WOMAC) at last follow-up were similar postoperatively, but the complication rate for Group S was twice that of Group A (20.8 versus 10%). Mean overall hospital-related costs of two-stage procedures were 2.2 times greater than those for aseptic revisions.

Conclusions

Two-stage revision for infected hip prostheses, using a preformed antibiotic-loaded cement spacer and uncemented revision prosthesis, offers a success rate comparable to noninfected revisions in the medium term but is associated with a higher complication rate and costs.

Long-stem versus short-stem preformed antibiotic-loaded cement spacers for two-stage revision of infected total hip arthroplasty

Two-stage revision is the most widely accepted and performed intervention for chronically infected hip prostheses. In recent years short and long stem antibiotic-loaded preformed spacers have become available on the market. The aim of this prospective, comparative study was to assess the safety and efficacy of long stem versus short stem preformed spacers. From year 2000 to 2007 102 consecutive patients underwent two-stage revision of septic hip replacement with a preformed antibiotic-loaded cement spacer and a cementless modular hip revision prosthesis. Patients were divided in two groups: Group L (long stem spacer) (N=60) and Group S (short stem) (N=42) and compared. No systemic toxicity due to local antibiotic release and no spacer breakage were observed in either group. At spacer removal, no statistically significant difference was observed in infection recurrence. After revision, at a mean 4 years follow-up, 2 patients in Group L and 2 in Group S showed infection recurrence. The Harris Hip Score improved in both groups, compared to post spacer implant values: 79.6 + or - 15.4 versus 38.4 + or - 14.5 in Group L (p < 0.0001) and 82.3 + or - 14.4 versus 44.8 + or - 16.6 in Group S (p < 0.0001); the difference between groups was not statistically significant. Short and long stem spacers provide comparable low infection recurrence rate and clinical outcome, with negligible risk of breakage and toxicity.

Use of a cement-loaded Kuntscher nail in first-stage revision hip arthroplasty for massive femoral bone loss secondary to infection: a report of four cases

A 2-stage revision total hip replacement (THR) is the standard treatment for a chronically infected THR with severe metadiaphyseal bone loss. A long-stem cemented prosthesis as part of a temporary articular spacer is commonly used during the first-stage procedure. Nonetheless, this option is expensive and can pose difficulties for patients with a small medullary canal. A construct using an antibiotic cement-loaded Kuntscher nail cemented with a highly polished Exeter stem has been devised and used in 4 patients.

Two-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip for infection using an interim articulated Prostalac hip spacer: a 10- to 15-year follow-up study

We report the outcome at ten to 15 years of two-stage revision for hip infection in 99 patients using the Prostalac articulated hip spacer system. All the patients were contacted to determine their current functional and infection status using the Oxford-12, Short form-12, and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index questionnaires. A total of 11 of the 99 patients had a further infection, of whom seven responded to repeat surgery with no further sequelae. The mean interval between the stages was five months (1 to 36). We were able to review 48 living patients, with a mean age of 72 years (46 to 86), 34 (71%) of whom provided health-related quality-of-life outcome scores. The mean follow-up was 12 years (10 to 15). The long-term success rate was 89% and with additional surgery this rose to 96%. The mean global Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index score was 80.6 (sd 18.3). The mean Oxford-12 score was 74.0 (sd 22.3), and the mean Short form-12 score was 53.1 (sd 9.4) (mental) and 33.5 (sd 13.5) (physical). The mean satisfaction score was 90.5 (sd 15.3). Two-stage revision for hip infection using a Prostalac interim spacer offers a predictable and lasting solution for patients with this difficult problem.

Two-stage procedure in the treatment of late chronic hip infections--spacer implantation

Infection after total hip arthroplasties (THA) is a devastating complication with significant consequences for both the patients and the healthcare systems. In recent times, a two stage procedure using antibiotic-impregnated interim spacers has become the most popular treatment for late chronic hip joint infections after THA with success rates over 90%. In this review, we discuss the different types of spacers used in the treatment of chronically infected THA and conclude that hip spacers are effective in the treatment of hip joint infections.

A technique for the fabrication of a reinforced moulded articulating cement spacer in two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty

We describe an inexpensive method of producing a reinforced articulating cement spacer using a commercially available hip cement mould. We have a cohort of 15 consecutive patients in whom this novel cement spacer has been used. All patients were able to at least partially weight bear and none of the spacers fractured. Thirteen have been explanted at second stage operation after a minimum of eight weeks in situ. Two patients have been unable to undergo a second stage due to unrelated death and medical problems precluding further surgery. The articulating cement spacer described is produced using a technique that is simple, reproducible and allows a reinforced spacer to be created inexpensively without the need for special equipment.

Static and mobile antibiotic-impregnated cement spacers for the management of prosthetic joint infection

Two-stage treatment is currently the most common approach for management of an infected joint prosthesis in the United States. Static antibiotic-impregnated polymethylmethacrylate cement spacers have traditionally been used; increasingly, however, mobile or articulating spacers are being utilized. Advocates of mobile spacers have cited potential advantages, including more effective maintenance of the joint space, allowing for limited weight bearing and facilitating joint motion; possible reduction in bone loss; and local delivery of antibiotics. Because a variety of materials and construction methods is used to make knee and hip spacers, comparisons are difficult. Randomized, prospective studies are needed to determine the best spacers for total knee and total hip arthroplasties.

The compressive properties of bone cements containing large doses of antibiotics

The addition of large amounts of antibiotics to bone cement provides a convenient local delivery, but may influence the compressive properties of the cement. Flucloxacillin and vancomycin were added to Simplex P (Stryker, Limerick, Ireland) and VersaBond (Smith & Nephew) cements. Tripling the antibiotic dose from 2 to 6 g had little effect on the static compressive properties 24 hours after curing. After 4 weeks in phosphate-buffered saline, there was marked decrease in properties with the addition of antibiotics. Compressive strength of cements with 6 g of antibiotic was reduced to near or below the ASTM and ISO minimum of 70 MPa after 4 weeks in phosphate-buffered saline. Microcomputer tomography revealed increased porosity and clumping of the radiopacifier with the addition of antibiotics.

Use of antibiotic cement rod to treat intramedullary infection after nailing: preliminary study in 19 patients

The treatment of intramedullary infections after nailing usually includes removal of the nail, debridement, and, in some cases, insertion of antibiotic-impregnated cement beads. We use this self-made antibiotic cement rod to treat intramedullary infections. Compared with the beads, it provides some limited mechanical support and can be preserved in the canal for a long time. We reviewed 19 infected patients who underwent removal of the nails, excision of sinus tracks, debridement of the canal and insertion of the rods. No recurrent infection occurred in 18 cases and 11 cases achieved bone healing, 6 cases achieved partial union. One patient had nonunion and one patient underwent amputation because of severe primary trauma and long-term infection. The rod was removed between 35 and 123 days after implantation. We conclude that the antibiotic cement rods could be a relatively effective, simple and inexpensive method of treating intramedullary infections after nailing.