Hip instability in 2-stage reimplantation without an articulating spacer

Modular fluted tapered stems in two-stage reimplantation of previously infected total hip arthroplasties

Aims

Uncemented implants are now commonly used at reimplantation of a two-stage revision total hip arthoplasty (THA) following periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, there is a paucity of data on the performance of the most commonly used uncemented femoral implants - modular fluted tapered (MFT) femoral components - in this setting. This study evaluated implant survival, radiological results, and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of reimplantation THAs using MFT components.

Methods

We identified 236 reimplantation THAs from a single tertiary care academic institution from September 2000 to September 2020. Two designs of MFT femoral components were used as part of an established two-stage exchange protocol for the treatment of PJI. Mean age at reimplantation was 65 years (SD 11), mean BMI was 32 kg/m2 (SD 7), and 46% (n = 109) were female. Mean follow-up was seven years (SD 4). A competing risk model accounting for death was used.

Results

The 15-year cumulative incidence of any revision was 24%. There were 48 revisions, with the most common reasons being dislocation (n = 25) and infection (n = 16). The 15-year cumulative incidence of any reoperation was 28%. Only 13 revisions involved the fluted tapered component (FTC), for a 15-year cumulative incidence of any FTC revision of 8%. Only two FTCs were revised for aseptic loosening, resulting in a 15-year cumulative incidence of FTC revision for aseptic loosening of 1%. Stem subsidence ≥ 5 mm occurred in 2% of unrevised cases. All stems were radiologically stable at most recent follow-up. Mean Harris Hip Score was 69 (SD 20) at most recent follow-up.

Conclusion

This series demonstrated that MFT components were durable and reliable in the setting of two-stage reimplantation THA for infection. While the incidence of aseptic loosening was very low, the incidence of any revision was 24% at 15 years, primarily due to dislocation and recurrent PJI.

The diagnosis and treatment of septic hip with osteonecrosis of the femoral head

This article aims to provide clinical doctors with references for the diagnosis and treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) accompanied with septic hip by summarizing and analyzing clinical data and postoperative follow-up information of patients treated with two-stage arthroplasty. We retrospectively analyzed ten patients who underwent two-stage arthroplasty in our hospital due to ONFH accompanied with septic hip. The diagnosis of septic hip includes erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) > 30 mm/h, C-reactive protein (CRP) > 10 mg/L, pus-like synovial fluid, positive microbiological culture, and the findings of septic arthritis on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. Patient's information was evaluated based on the review of medical records, including gender, age, symptoms, risk factor of ONFH and septic arthritis, blood test, radiograph, MRI scan, microbiological culture, treatment, follow-up period and outcome. A total of ten patients were diagnosed with ONFH accompanied with septic hip. The average follow-up period was 43.5 months. None of the patients experienced failure during the follow-up period. The risk factor of ONFH was alcohol-related (60%), steroid-related (20%) and idiopathic (20%). Nine patients (90%) have no risk factor of septic arthritis and one patient (10%) has nephrotic syndrome. All patients did not experience any fever symptoms before surgery, but all showed worsening symptoms of pain. There were three patients (30%) with abnormal WBC count > 10 × 109/L. All patients had elevated ESR and/or CPR. Nine patients (90%) had positive MRI findings, and seven patients (70%) had positive microbiological culture. When patients with ONFH experience worsening hip joint pain accompanied by unexplained elevated CRP and/or ESR, it should be suspected whether ONFH is accompanied with septic hip. In these cases, MRI scans should be performed to exclude septic hip. Patients with ONFH accompanied with septic hip showed satisfactory results after two-stage arthroplasty.

Novel molded antibiotic cement spacer: is it better than handmade cement spacer for treatment of chronically infected total hip arthroplasty?

PURPOSE

A handmade antibiotic cement spacer is the easiest method for producing a spacer for treating chronic periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, a molded spacer offers more head and stem sizes to match the patient's anatomy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the functional outcomes and complications between handmade and molded spacers.

METHODS

This retrospective case note study compared the functional results, re-infection rate, and spacer related complications after the first stage and second stage exchange arthroplasty between a handmade spacer and a novel molded cement spacer with three sizes of femoral head (45, 50, and 55 mm) and two stem sizes (small, large).

RESULTS

Fifteen chronically infected THA patients were identified: nine handmade and 6 molded spacers. The modified Harris Hip Score showed no inter-group differences pre-operatively and after first stage and second stage exchange arthroplasty. The erythrocyte sedimentary rates and C-reactive protein concentrations were similar at all time points, and there were no re-infections. The molded spacer group showed lower post-operative complications with no spacer fractures, spacer dislocations, and periprosthetic fractures, but two had spacer subsidence. The handmade spacer had two spacer fractures, one spacer dislocation with a periprosthetic femoral fracture, and four cases of spacer subsidence.

CONCLUSION

Our small study showed no differences in functional outcomes and no re-infections in either group, but higher spacer-related complications occurred in the handmade spacer group. These data suggest molded spacers are better than handmade spacers.

Two-Stage Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Without Spacer Placement: A Viable Option to Manage Infection in Patients With Severe Bone Loss or Abductor Deficiency

BACKGROUND

High rates of spacer-related complications in two-stage exchange total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been reported. Patients with advanced bone defects and abductor deficiency may benefit from a nonspacer two-stage revision. This study reports on the clinical course of a contemporary two-stage exchange for periprosthetic hip infection without spacer insertion.

METHODS

We reviewed 141 infected THAs with extensive bone loss or abductor damage who underwent two-stage exchange without spacer placement. The mean duration from resection arthroplasty to reimplantation was 9 weeks (2-29). Clinical outcomes included interim revision, reinfection, and aseptic revision rates. Restoration of leg-length and offset was assessed radiographically. Modified Harris hip scores were calculated. Mean follow-up was 5 years (3-7). Treatment success was defined using the modified Delphi consensus criteria.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients (24%) had treatment failure, including 13 reinfections, 16 interim redebridements for persistent infection, 2 antibiotic suppressive therapies, and 3 prosthetic joint infection-related deaths. Aseptic rerevision after reimplantation was necessary in 14 patients (10%). Dislocation accounted for most aseptic complications, with 20 dislocations occurring in 15 patients (11%). Leg-length and offset were restored to preoperative measures. Mean modified Harris hip scores significantly improved from 35 points to 67 points.

CONCLUSION

A nonspacer two-stage exchange is a viable option for managing chronically infected THA with severe bone loss or abductor deficiency, showing comparable rates of interim revision and recurrence of infection. Cementless reimplantation demonstrates good midterm survivorship with comparable functional outcomes and leg-length restoration. However, dislocation continues to be a major concern.

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.

Spacer Design Options and Consideration for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

An articulating or nonarticulating antibiotic hip spacer can be placed following the first stage implant removal of a periprosthetic hip joint infection. Antibiotic spacers help fill in the dead space created at the time of resection and provide a high local concentration of antibiotics. Theoretical advantages of a static spacer include a higher elution of antibiotics because of the increased surface area, the ability to protect deficient bone in the proximal femur/acetabulum, and the ability to immobilize the periarticular soft tissues. Advantages of an articulating spacer include improved ambulation and easier motion for the patient, maintenance of soft tissue tension, and an easier surgical reconstruction at the time of the second stage. Additionally, an articulating antibiotic spacer may minimize the risk of dislocation following the second stage reconstruction. The choice of articulating or nonarticulating is currently one of surgeon preference yet it is advised that surgeons consider an articulating spacer for all patients except those with severe femoral/acetabular bone loss or deficient abductors.

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.

Long-Term Results of a 2-Stage Exchange Protocol for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Total Hip Arthroplasty in 164 Hips

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist that show the long-term risks of reinfection and mechanical failure with a contemporary 2-stage exchange protocol for periprosthetic joint infection following total hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term reinfection and mechanical failure rates of 2-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

We identified 164 hips (162 patients) with infection after total hip arthroplasty between 1991 and 2006 treated with a 2-stage exchange protocol with no prior treatment for periprosthetic joint infection. With regard to Musculoskeletal Infection Society diagnostic criteria, at least 1 major criterion or 4 of 6 minor criteria were fulfilled in 129 hips (79%). The cumulative incidence with a competing risk of death was calculated for reinfection, aseptic revisions, and all-cause revisions. The risk factors for reinfection were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Harris hip scores were calculated. The mean age at the time of spacer insertion was 68 years, and 35% of the patients were female. Excluding the patients with <2 years of follow-up, the mean follow-up was 12 years (range, 2 to 21 years).

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of recurrence of infection was 10% at 1 year, 14% at 5 years, and 15% at 10 and 15 years. Seventeen patients (11%) used chronic antibiotic suppression (>6 months), with 7 (41%) of these having recurrent infection at the time of the latest follow-up. Use of chronic antibiotic suppression was the only predictive factor for reinfection (hazard ratio, 4.5 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.9 to 10.9]; p = 0.001). The cumulative incidence of aseptic femoral and acetabular revisions was 2.6% at 5 years and 3.3% at 10 and 15 years. The cumulative incidence of all-cause revisions was 15% at 5 years and 16% at 10 and 15 years. Dislocation was the most common complication, with 28 dislocations occurring in 20 patients (12%). The mean Harris hip score improved from 52 points prior to spacer insertion to 70 points at 15 years after reimplantation (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of recurrence of infection of 15% for up to 15 years after total hip arthroplasty was similar to previous shorter-term reports of 2-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection. Surgeons should anticipate mitigating instability after reimplantation. Implant survivorship free of aseptic loosening and clinical outcomes were preserved for the long term. The role of chronic antibiotic suppression in the long-term treatment of periprosthetic joint infection requires further investigation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

The double-mobility acetabular component in revision total hip replacement

We present our experience with a double-mobility acetabular component in 155 consecutive revision total hip replacements in 149 patients undertaken between 2005 and 2009, with particular emphasis on the incidence of further dislocation. The mean age of the patients was 77 years (42 to 89) with 59 males and 90 females. In all, five patients died and seven were lost to follow-up. Indications for revision were aseptic loosening in 113 hips, recurrent instability in 29, peri-prosthetic fracture in 11 and sepsis in two. The mean follow-up was 42 months (18 to 68). Three hips (2%) in three patients dislocated within six weeks of surgery; one of these dislocated again after one year. All three were managed successfully with closed reduction. Two of the three dislocations occurred in patients who had undergone revision for recurrent dislocation. All three were found at revision to have abductor deficiency. There were no dislocations in those revised for either aseptic loosening or sepsis.

These results demonstrate a good mid-term outcome for this component. In the 29 patients revised for instability, only two had a further dislocation, both of which were managed by closed reduction.

[Hip joint infections - Results of a questionnaire among 28 university orthopedic departments]

BACKGROUND

Despite numerous prophylactic measures infections still remain a hazardous complication in orthopedic surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A questionnaire about hip joint infections was sent to all university orthopedic departments in Germany and Austria. The questionnaire included 33 questions with respect to demographic data, causative organisms, diagnostic measures, treatment options for early and late infections, antibiotic therapy and prosthesis reimplantation.

RESULTS

The participation rate was 70%. The most frequent primary surgical indication was primary total hip replacement and Staphylococcus aureus and S. epidermidis were the most common pathogens identified. All departments performed a joint aspiration for diagnosis confirmation but for other diagnostic measures a great discrepancy could be observed. In the treatment of early infections removable components were always exchanged, whereas a local antibiotic therapy was not always employed. With regard to late infections a two-stage protocol was more frequently used than a one-stage treatment, whereby the implantation of a cement spacer was more commonly performed than a resection arthroplasty. The time between stages varied between 6 and 12 weeks and systemic antibiotics were administered for a mean time of 6 weeks. For prosthesis reimplantion cementless components were mostly used but no clear tendency could be determined for systemic antibiotic therapy.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of hip joint infections among German and Austrian university orthopedic departments is only partly carried out in a similar manner.

Complications after spacer implantation in the treatment of hip joint infections

The aim of this retrospective study was to identify and evaluate complications after hip spacer implantation other than reinfection and/or infection persistence. Between 1999 and 2008, 88 hip spacer implantations in 82 patients have been performed. There were 43 male and 39 female patients at a mean age of 70 [43-89] years. The mean spacer implantation time was 90 [14-1460] days. The mean follow-up was 54 [7-96] months. The most common identified organisms were S. aureus and S. epidermidis. In most cases, the spacers were impregnated with 1 g gentamicin and 4 g vancomycin/80 g bone cement. The overall complication rate was 58.5% (48/82 cases). A spacer dislocation occurred in 15 cases (17%). Spacer fractures could be noticed in 9 cases (10.2%). Femoral fractures occurred in 12 cases (13.6%). After prosthesis reimplantation, 16 patients suffered from a prosthesis dislocation (23%). 2 patients (2.4%) showed allergic reactions against the intravenous antibiotic therapy. An acute renal failure occurred in 5 cases (6%). No cases of hepatic failure or ototoxicity could be observed in our collective. General complications (consisting mostly of draining sinus, pneumonia, cardiopulmonary decompensation, lower urinary tract infections) occurred in 38 patients (46.3%). Despite the retrospective study design and the limited possibility of interpreting these findings and their causes, this rate indicates that patients suffering from late hip joint infections and being treated with a two-stage protocol are prone to having complications. Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of these complications and their treatment options and focus on the early diagnosis for prevention of further complications. Between stages, an interdisciplinary cooperation with other facilities (internal medicine, microbiologists) should be aimed for patients with several comorbidities for optimizing their general medical condition.