Antibiotics-impregnated cement spacers in the first step of two-stage revision for infected totally replaced hip joints: report of ten trial cases

Posterior-Stabilized Antibiotic Cement Articulating Spacer With Endoskeleton-Reinforced Cam Reduces Rate of Post-Cam Mechanical Complications in Prosthetic Knee Infection: A Preliminary Study

BACKGROUND

Posterior-stabilized antibiotic cement articulating spacers (PS spacers) reduce spacer mechanical complications in prosthetic knee infections (PKIs); however, joint dislocation after femoral cam fracture has been reported. We hypothesized that the rate of post-cam mechanical complications is lower in PS spacers with an endoskeleton-reinforced cam.

METHOD

A retrospective study of PKIs using PS spacers with or without a Kirschner wire-reinforced cam (K-PS or nK-PS spacers, respectively) was conducted between 2015 and 2019. The rates of post-cam mechanical complications and reoperation, as well as risk factors for post or cam failure, were analyzed.

RESULTS

The cohort included 118 nK-PS and 49 K-PS spacers. All patients were followed up for 2 years. The rate of joint subluxation/dislocation after femoral cam fracture was lower in K-PS (0%) than in nK-PS spacers (17.8%; P = .002). The reoperation rate for spacer mechanical complications was lower in K-PS (0%) than in nK-PS spacers (11.9%; P = .008). The identified risk factors for femoral cam fractures were body mass index ≥25 kg/m², femoral spacer size ≤2, and surgical volume ≤12 resection arthroplasties per year.

CONCLUSION

This preliminary study highlights that K-PS spacers have a lower rate of post-cam mechanical complications than nK-PS spacers. We recommend the use of PS spacers with endoskeleton-reinforced cam when treating PKIs performed by surgeons with lower surgical volumes, especially in patients with higher body mass index and smaller femoral spacer sizes.

The use of augmented antibiotic-loaded cement spacer in periprosthetic joint infection patients with acetabular bone defect

BACKGROUND

Spacer complications may affect final clinical outcome of the two-stage approach in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) patients. This study aimed to investigate clinical outcomes and complications of augmented antibiotic-loaded cement spacer in PJI patients with acetabular bone defect.

METHODS

Data on PJI patients with acetabular bone defect receiving two-stage revision from January 2009 to December 2016, in our hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Screw-cement-shell was used to improve the stability of the hip with acetabular wall defect. Handmade acetabular spacer could prevent femoral spacer entering into pelvis in patients with acetabular internal wall defect. A total of 26 patients (11 males and 15 females) were included in the current study. Their mean age was 46.7 ± 15.4 years old. Clinical outcomes and complications were measured.

RESULTS

Twenty-one of total 26 hips (21/26, 80.8%) showed positive cultures and 15/26 (57.7%) samples were cultured with staphylococcus. Of enrolled patients, 5/26 (19.2%) developed mixed infection. There was one patient (3.8%) with spacer dislocation and two (7.7%) with spacer fracture. One patient developed acute PJI 5 years after the second-stage revision, so overall success rate among these patients was 96.2%. Differences in Paprosky classifications before the first and second stage did not reach significant level (p > 0.05). Hip Harris score was raised from 40.9 ± 14.0 to 81.2 ± 11.2 (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Augmented antibiotic-loaded cement spacer could achieve satisfactory clinical outcomes in PJI patients with acetabular bone defect. It provided joint mobility, increased additional joint stability, and decreased iatrogenic bone defect caused by acetabular wear.

Preliminary results of a novel spacer technique in the management of septic revision hip arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical failure due to dislocation, fracture and acetabular wear is a major complication associated with the use of spacers in the management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We have developed a novel custom-made spacer in the setting of two-stage septic revision hip arthroplasty and present the preliminary results of our technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between May 2015 and November 2017, 30 patients underwent hip revision using the ENDO spacer technique in the setting of a two-stage septic exchange arthroplasty. The technique involves the dual mobility liner and the downsized stainless cemented straight stem in combination with antibiotic-loaded PMMA bone cement. The primary outcome measure was the overall spacer complication rate, particularly spacer dislocation. Furthermore, functional outcome using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) before spacer implantation and prior re-implantation was evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 69.8 years (range from 45 to 85; SD = 9.9 years). No microorganisms were preoperatively found in 23 (76.7%) cases. Successful re-implantation was performed in all patients after a mean spacer duration time of 53.6 days (range 14-288 days; SD = 48.2). Spacer-related complications occurred in only two patients (6.7%). The HHS significantly improved from 34.0 (range 3-62; SD = 15.1) to 48.1 (range 11-73; SD = 15.7) (p = 0.0008).

CONCLUSIONS

The ENDO spacer surgical technique is a feasible option in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), with a low dislocation rate. Furthermore, it allows early mobilization with the possibility of full-weight bearing.

Antibiotic cement spacer for isolated medial wall acetabular deficiency in the setting of infected hip arthroplasty

Periprosthetic joint infections remain challenging for orthopaedic surgeons. These are typically treated with 2-stage revision with an antibiotic spacer and arthroplasty reimplantation after infection eradication. We report a novel technique to create an antibiotic cement spacer construct in the setting of significant acetabular medial wall destruction due to osteolysis and infection. The medial wall of the acetabulum was reconstructed using antibiotic cement with 2 screws acting as a rebar. An acetabular liner was then cemented into place forming a cement construct similar to a reconstruction cage in function. This technique created a firm acetabular construct that allowed for the placement of a stable articulating spacer. The spacer allowed for infection eradication and was successfully converted into a revision total hip arthroplasty.

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.

Coatings and surface modifications imparting antimicrobial activity to orthopedic implants

Bacterial colonization and biofilm formation on an orthopedic implant surface is one of the worst possible outcomes of orthopedic intervention in terms of both patient prognosis and healthcare costs. Making the problem even more vexing is the fact that infections are often caused by events beyond the control of the operating surgeon and may manifest weeks to months after the initial surgery. Herein, we review the costs and consequences of implant infection as well as the methods of prevention and management. In particular, we focus on coatings and other forms of implant surface modification in a manner that imparts some antimicrobial benefit to the implant device. Such coatings can be classified generally based on their mode of action: surface adhesion prevention, bactericidal, antimicrobial-eluting, osseointegration promotion, and combinations of the above. Despite several advances in the efficacy of these antimicrobial methods, a remaining major challenge is ensuring retention of the antimicrobial activity over a period of months to years postoperation, an issue that has so far been inadequately addressed. Finally, we provide an overview of additional figures of merit that will determine whether a given antimicrobial surface modification warrants adoption for clinical use.

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 revision total hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic infections using antibiotic-impregnated cement spacers of various types and materials

Antibiotic-impregnated hip cement spacers of various types and materials have been used in the treatment of periprosthetic hip infections. We developed a handmade spacer by using polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and/or α-tricalcium phosphate (α-TCP). In this study, we retrospectively reviewed the surgical outcomes in 36 consecutive patients treated with 2-stage revision total hip arthroplasty by using our antibiotic-impregnated hip cement spacers. We aimed to analyze the infection control and reinfection rates after revision surgery. Moreover, we analyzed the possible predictors of postoperative reinfection. After exclusion of 1 patient who died immediately after the first-stage surgery, infection was controlled in 33 of the 36 hips (success rate, 91.7%). Two of these 33 hips underwent resection arthroplasty. Of the 36 hips that had been treated with the antibiotic-cement spacer, 31 hips (86.1%) were eligible for the second-stage prosthesis re-implantation. The 31 protocol hip joints of patients followed up for >6 months (mean, 48.6 months). Ten of these 31 hips (32.3%) became reinfected. No possible predictor examined differed significantly between the reinfection-positive and reinfection-negative groups. However, spacers consisting of PMMA cement alone were associated with the highest risk of reinfection. Therefore, α-TCP-containing antibiotic-impregnated hip cement spacers might decrease the reinfection rate in patients undergoing re-implantation.

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.

Management of total femoral bone loss using a hybrid cement spacer surgical technique

Standard treatment for an infected total hip arthroplasty is 2-stage revision. Bone loss in infected total hip arthroplasty presents specific challenges during the first stage. This is especially the case when there is massive or complete loss of the femoral bone stock. We describe a technique successfully used in the setting of total femoral bone loss using a hybrid cement spacer. We describe 2 cases illustrating the technique and perioperative course. This technique is a potential solution for total femoral bone loss that allows the individual to maintain mobility before definitive surgery.

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.

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.

[Replacement of infected knee and hip endoprostheses]

Infections occur in 0.5-5% of cases after implantation of an endoprosthesis and represent one of the most severe complications of artificial joint replacements. Approximately 300,000 primary implantations for hip and knee prostheses are carried out in Germany annually with a corresponding number of early and late infections. This means that approximately 4,000-6,000 cases are to be expected annually. Periprosthetic infections normally lead to a significant loss of function and quality of life for patients and the complex remediation is costly. Therefore, preventive measures, such as perioperative prophylaxis with antibiotics, maintaining highly sterile conditions during operations and an expedient selection of patients are of substantial importance. The basic principles of an adequate restoration include identification of the pathogen, local eradication of the infection mostly after removal of the prosthesis, pathogen-oriented systemic and local antibiotic therapy and finally re-implantation of the revision prosthesis under infection-free conditions. The standard procedure for revision surgery is a two-phase replacement with maintenance of an infection-free interval before renewal of the prosthesis. The use of single-phase or multi-phase strategies, as well as the selection of cemented or cement-free revision, varies between centers as a definitive evaluation is not yet available.The most important parameters for successful treatment of periprosthetic infections have been identified as the earliest possible diagnosis, radical surgical cleansing with an adequate antibiotic therapy and successful restoration has been reported in approximately 80% of cases. Because of the complex therapy regime, treatment in specialized centers is generally recommended especially under the aspect of a demanding patient monitoring.