Temporary cement tectoplasty: a technique to improve prefabricated hip spacer stability in two-stage surgery for infected hip arthroplasty

3D-printed antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacers as adjunctive therapy for hip periprosthetic infection after arthroplasty: A clinical assessment

OBJECTIVE

To explore the effect of three-dimensional (3D) printing to create personalized antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) spacers to assist in treatment of periprosthetic infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

The data of 40 patients with postoperative infection after THA were analysed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups: the 3D-printing group (age 47-78 years, n = 20) and the conventional group (age 57-78 years, n = 20). In stage I surgery, 3D-printed silicone moulds were used to create ALBC spacers for the 3D-printing group, while traditional manual methods were used to create spacers for the conventional group. After the infection was controlled, both groups underwent conventional hip revision surgery (stage II surgery). All patients were evaluated using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) (primary outcome) for hip function.

RESULTS

All 40 patients had follow-up data from 3 months after stage I surgery and 12 months after stage II surgery. The intergroup difference in HHS was 11.25 points [97.5% confidence interval (CI) 7.92-14.58; P < 0.01] at 3 months after stage I surgery, and 9.15 points (97.5% CI 4.82-13.48; P < 0.01) at 12 months after stage II surgery. The overall difference between the two groups was 9.55 points (97.5% CI 5.83-13.27; P < 0.01), which was significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

During the follow-up period, the hip function of the 3D-printing group was superior to that of the conventional group following the treatment of infections after THA.

Two-stage strategy in end-stage hip periprosthetic joint infection: utility of industrially prefabricated custom-made antibiotic spacers

PURPOSE

Use of prefabricated mobile spacers in end-stage cases of hip periprosthetic joint infection (HPJI) is hindered when large bone defects exist. In such cases, prefabricated custom-made antibiotic spacers (P-CMAS) offer an alternative. Such spacers are individually designed according to the size and anatomical characteristics of the bone defect. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate the use of such patient-specific spacers in a two-stage strategy to treat end-stage HPJI cases, and to report on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective study identified all patients with end-stage HPJIs from January 2015 through December 2019, treated using a P-CMAS. Primary outcome: infection eradication rate. Secondary outcomes: spacer-related complications and patient satisfaction. Minimum follow-up: 12 months after the second-stage surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 7 end-stage cases (mean of 6.7 previous surgical procedures) were included. Mean bone defect size was 191.57 (range 47-304) mm. Polymicrobial infection was detected in 42.86% of these cases. During the spacer stage there were no periprosthetic fractures, spacer dislocations or breakages, nor spacer-drug-related complications. All patients proceeded with the second stage uneventfully, with an average time between stages of 178 (range 119-326) days. In 5 cases a total femur arthroplasty was the reconstructive procedure performed. After a mean follow-up of 27.29 (range 14-49) months the infection was clinically eradicated in all patients, despite their difficult-to-treat scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Industrially custom-made spacers offer an effective and safe option in performing 2-stage exchange arthroplasty in cases of end-stage HPJI with extensive bone defects.

The Diagnosis and Treatment of Acetabular Bone Loss in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: An International Consensus Symposium

Despite growing evidence supporting the evaluation, classification, and treatment of acetabular bone loss in revision hip replacement, advancements have not been systematically incorporated into a single document, and therefore, a comprehensive review of the treatment of severe acetabular bone loss is needed. The Stavros Niarchos Foundation Complex Joint Reconstruction Center at Hospital for Special Surgery held an Acetabular Bone Loss Symposium on June 21, 2019, to answer the following questions: What are the trends, emerging technologies, and areas of future research related to the evaluation and management of acetabular bone loss in revision hip replacement? What constitutes the optimal workup and management strategies for acetabular bone loss? The 36 international experts convened were divided into groups, each assigned to discuss 1 of 4 topics: (1) preoperative planning and postoperative assessment; (2) implant selection, management of osteolysis, and management of massive bone loss; (3) the treatment challenges of pelvic discontinuity, periprosthetic joint infection, instability, and poor bone biology; and (4) the principles of reconstruction and classification of acetabular bone loss. Each group came to consensus, when possible, based on an extensive literature review. This document provides an overview of these 4 areas, the consensus each group arrived at, and directions for future research.

Dislocation of preformed antibiotic-loaded cement spacers (Spacer-G): etiological factors and clinical prognosis

This study assesses the factors associated with the dislocation of the Spacer-G and its clinical prognosis. Seventy-four spacers were reviewed. Acetabular bone defects, proximal femoral cementation of the spacer and its relationship to the size of the head spacer were not associated with dislocation. The only variable that it was possible to associate with dislocation was when the previous stem, prior to the spacer placement, was a cemented stem. In patients who experienced a dislocation, infection was not cured during the interim period more frequently than patients who had not experienced a dislocation (P = 0.001) and the final clinical hip evaluation was also worse (P < 0.001). The study concludes that the surgeon should assess different surgical aspects in order to avoid mechanical complications such as dislocation and its consequences.

Industrially prefabricated cement spacers: do vancomycin- and gentamicin-impregnated spacers offer any advantage?

BACKGROUND

Industrially preformed antibiotic-loaded cement spacers are useful to facilitate the second stage of two-stage exchange arthroplasty for infected THAs and TKAs. However, whether gentamicin alone or a combination of antibiotics (such as vancomycin and gentamicin) is more effective is not known.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We therefore sought to compare industrially prefabricated spacers containing either gentamicin or gentamicin and vancomycin with respect to (1) infection control, (2) complications, and (3) quality of life, pain, and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

We performed a review of 51 patients with chronic infections treated at one center using either gentamicin or vancomycin and gentamicin-prefabricated spacers. The former were used exclusively from January 2006 until May 2009, and the latter from June 2009 until July 2011, and there was no overlap. We collected data on demographics, immunologic status (McPherson classification), prosthetic joint infection location, type of prosthesis, microbiologic results, and time between stages. We evaluated the primary outcome of infection control or recurrence after at least 12 months followup. We also recorded complications. Each patient completed a quality-of-life survey, VAS, and a self-administered satisfaction scale.

RESULTS

The overall infection control rate was 83% after a mean followup of 35 months (range, 12.4-64.7 months). There were no differences between gentamicin and vancomycin and gentamicin spacers in terms of infection eradication (80 % versus 85 %, respectively; p = 0.73), nor in terms of complications, quality of life, pain, or satisfaction scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Prefabricated, antibiotic-loaded cement spacers has been proven effective for infection control in TKAs and THAs but with the numbers available, we did not find any differences between a gentamicin or vancomycin and gentamicin-prefabricated spacer, and therefore, we are unable to validate the superiority of the combination of vancomycin and gentamicin over gentamicin alone. Because of the higher costs involved with vancomycin and gentamicin spacers, and the potential risks of unselective use of vancomycin, further comparative studies are necessary to evaluate their role in the treatment of infected THAs or TKAs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.