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

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.