Two-Stage Revision Hip Arthroplasty with or without the Use of an Interim Spacer for Managing Late Prosthetic Infection: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Does the Degree of Liner Constraint Increase Risk of Complications in Articulating Spacers in Two-stage Revision After THA?

BACKGROUND

Two-stage revisions for chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) often include antibiotic-loaded cement spacers to control for infection and preserve function. While studies have reported on complications (dislocations, readmissions, and reoperations) after static versus articulating spacer types, there is a paucity of evidence about whether the degree of spacer constraint in articulating spacers affects these complications. This study aims to address a key gap in understanding as to whether the level of spacer constraint affects complications in two-stage revision THA utilizing articulating spacers.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Among patients receiving nonconstrained versus constrained articulating antibiotic spacers during first-stage revision THA for PJI, are there differences in major complications, such as dislocation, loosening, periprosthetic fracture, reinfection, and unplanned revisions? (2) After second-stage reimplantation, do patients who received a nonconstrained versus constrained liner during the first stage show differences in the risk of complications, reoperations, and readmissions?

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of 539 patients who underwent two-stage revision THA for PJI at a single-specialty, urban academic referral center between July 2011 and March 2023. Of these 539 patients, 72% (388) were excluded for undergoing a full component revision (femoral or acetabular) for any reason before their first stage, 3% (15) for receiving static spacers, and 6% (35) for receiving prefabricated femoral mono-block stems as part of their first stage. Those who underwent only liner exchange were not excluded. The remaining 19% (101 of 539) of patients were included in the final analysis and categorized by degree of liner constraint: 32 were in the nonconstrained group and 69 were in the constrained group. All surgeons included in this study specialize in adult reconstruction and are fellowship trained, and the selected level of constraint was solely based on their routine practice for articulating spacer construct. Baseline characteristics and clinical data, including age, self-reported gender, race, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, smoking status, surgical history, and perioperative details, were collected. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups except for smoking status. A priori power analysis determined that 150 patients (75 per group) would be needed to detect a statistical difference in the risk of dislocation between groups, assuming a 20% dislocation risk for the constrained group, at a 0.05 alpha level, and 80% power.

RESULTS

Between patients receiving nonconstrained versus constrained liners, there were no differences in complications after the first stage of revision. Three percent (1 of 32) of the nonconstrained liners developed dislocations compared with 3% (2 of 69) in the constrained group (relative risk [RR] 1.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 12.3]; p > 0.99). Three percent (1 of 32) of the nonconstrained group developed periprosthetic fractures compared with 7% (5 of 69) in the constrained group (RR 0.4 [95% CI 0.05 to 3.69]; p = 0.72). Similarly, 3% (1 of 32) versus 7% (5 of 69) had persistent infection (RR 0.4 [95% CI 0.05 to 3.69]; p = 0.72). One incident of loosening occurred in the constrained group. There were also no differences in spacer revision incidence: 10% (3 of 32) of the nonconstrained group and 10% (7 of 69) of the constrained group underwent an unplanned revision after the first stage (RR 1.0 [95% CI 0.29 to 3.91]; p = 0.91). For the second stage, dislocation was 14% (3 of 21) in the nonconstrained group and 10% (5 of 52) in the constrained group (RR 1.1 [95% CI 0.2 to 5.9]; p > 0.99). When comparing periprosthetic fractures, 10% (2 of 21) of the nonconstrained group developed periprosthetic fractures compared with 4% (2 of 52) in the constrained group (RR 2.2 [95% CI 0.3 to 16.6]; p = 0.78). Nineteen percent (4 of 21) in the nonconstrained group had persistent infection compared with 12% (6 of 52) in the constrained group (RR 1.5 [95% CI 0.39 to 5.74]; p = 0.81). The occurrence of readmission after the second stage was 19% (4 of 21) in the nonconstrained group compared with 15% (8 of 52) in the constrained group (RR 1.1 [95% CI 0.3 to 3.9]; p > 0.99). Twenty-four percent (5 of 21) of patients in the nonconstrained group required a surgery-related emergency department visit compared with 13% (7 of 52) in the constrained group (RR 1.6 [95% CI 0.4 to 5.6]; p = 0.64). The incidence of reoperation was 14% (3 of 21) in the nonconstrained group and 13% (7 of 52) in the constrained group (RR 0.9 [95% CI 0.2 to 3.8]; p > 0.99).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicated no differences in the risk of dislocations, reinfections, reoperations, and readmissions between patients undergoing constrained versus nonconstrained articulating spacers for two-stage revision THA. Because constrained liners are typically preferred in patients at higher risk of instability, our findings suggest that their use does not necessarily increase the risk of complications. However, because of the small sample size, larger studies are needed to demonstrate whether there is superiority of liner constraint in this patient population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Spacers in two-stage strategy for periprosthetic infection

In two-stage revision of infected implants, the first stage involves removing the implant and implanting a joint spacer, and the second stage involves implanting a new prosthesis at least 6 weeks later. Spacers have two main functions: local administration of high-dose antibiotics, and preservation of the joint space by reducing soft tissue retraction and improving patient comfort until reimplantation. The present review aims to detail the necessary characteristics of antibiotics added to cement to achieve good joint diffusion, to describe the steps of two-stage revision, and to present the types of spacer available according to the joint and complications. The antibiotic used in the spacer must be heat-resistant, water-soluble and chemically stable in the cement. Gentamicin and vancomycin are generally preferred. We recommend at least 3 months' systematic antibiotic therapy for periprosthetic joint infection. Reimplantation is performed either at 6 weeks without antibiotic washout or 3 months after 2 weeks' washout Spacers may be static (non-articulating) or dynamic (articulating). Static spacers are mainly used in the knee or hip in cases of severe bone defect or risk of soft-tissue lesions. An articulating spacer enables some joint functions to be preserved in the knee, hip or shoulder. The most frequent complications are the dislocation of dynamic spacers and the breakage of static or dynamic spacers. To optimize efficacy and minimize complications, the biomechanical and bacteriological characteristics of spacers must be considered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Expert opinion.

Mechanical complications and infection control comparison of custom-made and prefabricated articular hip spacers in the treatment of periprosthetic infection

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of our study was to compare the complication rate and the outcomes of custom-made spacers (C-spacers) and prefabricated articular spacers (P-spacers) in the treatment of periprosthetic infection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, 78 patients (44 females, 34 males; mean age: 68.5±9.48 years; range, 47 to 82 years) with articular spacers implanted in our institution were analyzed between January 2009 and December 2019. We recorded implant results as per mechanical complications, infection control, the interval from surgery to definitive hip replacement, and the rate of achieving recovery of joint function after stage two arthroplasty.

RESULTS

There were 29 revised spacers; 18 of them were C-spacers and 11 were P-spacers (p=0.0383). A total of 16 dislocations were recorded, of which six were dislocations of C-spacers, and 10 were dislocations of P-spacers (p=0.0082). Additionally, we registered four spacer breakages, all of which occurred in C-spacers (p=0.295). C-spacers failed early, at an mean interval of 2.2 weeks after implantation, and P-spacers failed later, with an mean of 9.3 weeks after implantation (p=0.0187). A total of nine reinfection complications of spacers were registered; only one infection of P-spacers, and eight infections related to C-spacers (p=0.2583). Definitive revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) after spacer explantation and successful treatment of the infection occurred in 63 cases out of 78 patients. Definitive rTHA occurred after the use of C-spacers in 41 (78%) patients and after the use of C-spacers in 22 (84%) patients (p=0.7816). C-spacers had a mean interval from spacer implantation to definitive rTHA of 6.56±6.03 months, and P-spacers had a mean interval of 4±1.93 months (p=0.0164).

CONCLUSION

Custom-made spacers were shown to have lower mechanical complication rates than prefabricated ones but more infection complications. Prefabricated spacers had more dislocations and fewer breakages. Custom-made spacer mechanical failures occurred earlier compared to prefabricated ones.

Two-stage revision in periprosthetic joint infection of the hip using a new intraoperatively molded articulating spacer design

Purpose

The treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is still under debate. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is the most common surgical procedure performed. This study analyzed a new functional articulating hip spacer called "Spaceflex" regarding the mechanical-related complications, the recurrent/persistent infection during the interval period, the overall infection-free survivorship after reimplantation, the overall complication/reoperation after reimplantation and the evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at three intervals of time: before the first stage, during the interval period, and at the final follow-up after reimplantation.

Methods

A consecutive series of 56 patients with chronic hip PJI undergoing two-stage prosthetic revision using a new intraoperatively molded articulating hip spacer design implanted by the same experienced surgeons was examined from January 2017 to December 2021. The demographic and clinical characteristics of the included patients were analyzed. Specifically, PROMs before the first stage, during the interval period, and at the final follow-up after reimplantation and complications reported during the interval period and after reimplantation were examined.

Results

The new functional articulating hip spacer was characterized by a low mechanical complication rate (5.8%) and an overall two-stage procedure success rate of 90.6% at the last follow-up. PROMs improved with the spacer during the interval period and at the final follow-up. Furthermore, the reinfection rate was in line with other case series with different spacer designs. Finally, low postoperative complication rates after reimplantation have been demonstrated.

Conclusions

Two-stage revision performed with a modular articulating spacer allows patients to preserve satisfactory functional and quality-of-life outcomes in the postoperative period, with a low risk of mechanical complications and without increasing the reinfection rate.

Surgical Management for Chronic Destructive Septic Hip Arthritis: Debridement, Antibiotics, and Single-Stage Replacement is as Effective as Two-Stage Arthroplasty

Objective

To compare the surgical outcomes of debridement, antibiotics, and single‐stage total hip replacement (DASR) vs two‐stage arthroplasty (two‐stage arthroplasty) for chronic destructive septic hip arthritis (SHA).

Methods

Cases of chronic destructive SHA treated by DASR or two‐stage arthroplasty in our department from January 2008 to October 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographic information, perioperative inflammation markers, intraoperative blood loss, microbial culture, and metagenomic new generation sequencing results were recorded. The perioperative complications, hospital stay, hospitalization cost, infection recurrence rate, and Harris Hip Score (HHS) at the last follow‐up were compared between the two groups.

Results

A total of 28 patients were included in the study, including 11 patients who received DASR and 17 patients who received two‐stage arthroplasty. There was no significant difference in demographic information, preoperative serum inflammatory markers, synovial fluid white blood cell count, or percentage of polymorphonuclear leukocytes between the two groups. The DASR group demonstrated significantly lower intraoperative blood loss [(368.2 ± 253.3) mL vs (638.2 ± 170.0) mL, p = 0.002], hospital stay [(22.6 ± 8.1) days vs (43.5 ± 13.2) days, p < 0.0001], and hospitalization expenses [(81,269 ± 11,496) RMB vs (137,524 ± 25,516) RMB, p < 0.0001] than the two‐stage arthroplasty group. In the DASR group, one patient had dislocation as a complication. There were no cases with recurrence of infection. In the two‐stage arthroplasty group, there was one case complicated with spacer fracture, one case with spacer dislocation, and one case with deep vein thrombosis of the lower limbs. There were no cases with recurrence of infection. There were no significant differences in the readmission rate, complication rate, or HHS at the last follow‐up between the two groups.

Conclusions

Both DASR and two‐stage arthroplasty achieved a satisfactory infection cure rate and functional recovery for chronic destructive SHA, and DASR demonstrated significantly lower intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and hospitalization costs than two‐stage arthroplasty. For appropriately indicated patients, if microbial data are available and a standardized debridement protocol is strictly followed, DASR can be a treatment option.