Repeat 2-stage exchange for infected total hip arthroplasty: a viable option?

Success Rate After 2-Stage Spacer-Free Total Hip Arthroplasty Exchange and Risk Factors for Reinfection: A Prospective Cohort Study of 187 Patients

BACKGROUND

Two-stage prosthesis exchange is the treatment of choice for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of a total hip arthroplasty (THA), especially when the bone and surrounding soft tissues are compromised or difficult-to-treat pathogens are implicated. The aims of our study were as follows: (1) to determine the outcome of 2-stage prosthesis exchange for the treatment of PJI after THA and (2) to determine the risk factors for reinfection leading to subsequent revision surgeries after reimplantation.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 187 consecutive patients who underwent a 2-stage THA exchange with resection arthroplasty for PJI from 2013 to 2019. The mean (± SD) duration of follow-up was 54.2 ± 24.9 months (range, 36 to 96), and the mean interval until reimplantation was 9.8 ± 8.9 weeks (range, 2 to 38). All patients remained in a spacer-free girdlestone situation between the 2 stages of treatment. Patients who remained infection-free after their 2-stage treatment were considered to have achieved treatment success.

RESULTS

The overall success rate was 85.6%. The cumulative probability of reinfection was 11.5% after one year and 14% after 2 years after reimplantation. High virulence or difficult-to-treat pathogens were significant and independent risk factors for reinfection (HR [hazard ratio] = 3.71, 95% CI [confidence interval]: 1.47 to 9.36, P = .006 and HR = 3.85, 95% CI: 1.73 to 8.57, respectively, P = .001), as was previous 2-stage hip prosthesis exchange (HR = 3.58, 95% CI: 1.33 to 9.62, P = .01). Overall reoperation and revision rates were 26.2 and 16.6%, respectively. Re-infected patients had an 80% higher probability of reoperation than noninfected ones (P < .001, log-rank = 102.6), and they were 55% more likely to undergo revision surgery during their follow-up (P < .001, log-rank = 55.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Reinfection rates after 2-stage spacer-free THA revision for PJI still remain high but are comparable to those including cement spacers. Patients who have had prior failed 2-stage implant exchanges or are infected by high-grade or difficult-to-treat pathogens are at high risk for treatment failure.

Does Using Highly Porous Tantalum in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Reduce the Rate of Periprosthetic Joint Infection? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Studies suggest tantalum (Ta) implants may have inherent antibacterial properties. However, there is no consensus regarding the effectiveness of Ta in preventing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA).

Methods

We searched 5 main databases for articles reporting the rate of PJI following rTHA using Ta implants from inception to February 2022. The PJI rates of the Ta group were meta-analyzed, compared with the control group, and represented as relative risks (RRs) in forest plots.

Results

We identified 67 eligible studies (28,414 joints) for assessing the prevalence of PJI following rTHA using Ta implants. Among these studies, only 9 compared the Ta implant group with a control group. The overall PJI rate following rTHA using Ta implants was 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.2%-3.8%), while it was 5.7% (95% CI = 4.1%-7.8%) if only septic revisions were considered. Comparing the Ta and control groups showed a significantly lower PJI rate following all-cause rTHA with an RR = 0.80 (95% CI = 0.65-0.98, P < .05). There was a trend toward lower reinfection rates in the Ta group after rTHA in septic cases, although the difference was not statistically significant (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.44-1.29, P = .30).

Conclusions

Ta implants are associated with a lower PJI rate following all-cause rTHA but not after septic causes. Despite positive results, the clinical significance of Ta still remains unclear since the PJI rate was only reduced by 20%.

Level of Evidence

IV.

Predictors of Success With Chronic Antibiotic Suppression for Prosthetic Joint Infections

BACKGROUND

Management of recurrent prosthetic joint infection (PJI) after attempted surgical eradication remains a challenge. Chronic antibiotic suppression (CAS) is regarded as a reasonable treatment option for select patients with persistent infection or multiple comorbidities. The study seeks to compare cohorts who succeed and fail with CAS.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study assesses patients who were treated with CAS for a PJI. Patients were included if they had a culture-proven PJI and received chronic suppressive antibiotics. Failure of suppression was defined as reoperation after initiating CAS or death occurring as result of infection. A Cox proportional hazards multivariate regression model was used to estimate risk of reoperation as a function of risk factors related to patient comorbidities, surgical history, affected joint, and infecting organism.

RESULTS

We identified 45 PJIs (31 knees, 14 hips) managed with CAS with a median follow-up of 50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 33.61-74.02) months. The overall success rate of managing PJI with CAS was 67% (30/45). Controlling for body mass index and Gram status of the organism, total hip arthroplasty patients were less likely than total knee arthroplasty patients to require reoperation (hazard ratio 0.18, 95% CI 0.01-0.96, P = .04). Patients with Gram-positive infections were less likely than those with a Gram-negative infections to require reoperation (hazard ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-0.88, P = .03). Severe antibiotic side effects were rare. Patients who experienced multiple changes to their antibiotic regimen were more likely to fail with CAS.

CONCLUSION

CAS is a reasonable strategy in patients with PJI who lack or refuse further surgical treatment options. Most hips and Gram-positive infections treated with CAS successfully avoided reoperation in this cohort.

Favourable outcomes of repeat one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection of the hip

AIMS

One-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is gaining popularity. The outcome for a repeat one-stage revision THA after a failed one-stage exchange for infection remains unknown. The aim of this study was to report the infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival of repeat one-stage exchange, and to investigate the association between the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) staging system and further infection-related failure.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all repeat one-stage revision THAs performed after failed one-stage exchange THA for infection between January 2008 and December 2016. The final cohort included 32 patients. The mean follow-up after repeat one-stage exchange was 5.3 years (1.2 to 13.0). The patients with a further infection-related failure and/or all-cause revision were reported, and Kaplan-Meier survival for these endpoints determined. Patients were categorized according to the MSIS system, and its association with further infection was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of eight repeat septic revisions (25%) developed a further infection-related failure, and the five-year infection-free survival was 81% (95% confidence interval (CI) 57 to 92). Nine (28%) underwent a further all-cause revision and the five-year all-cause revision-free survival was 74% (95% CI 52 to 88). Neither the MSIS classification of the host status (p = 0.423) nor the limb status (p = 0.366) was significantly associated with further infection-related failure.

CONCLUSION

Repeat one-stage exchange for PJI in THA is associated with a favourable five-year infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival. Notably, the rate of infection control is encouraging when compared with the reported rates after repeat two-stage exchange. The results can be used to counsel patients and help clinicians make informed decisions about treatment. With the available number of patients, further infection-related failure was not associated with the MSIS host or limb status. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):27-33.

How to manage treatment failure in prosthetic joint infection

BACKGROUND

Management for prosthetic joint infections remains a challenging area for both infectious diseases and orthopaedic surgery, particularly in the setting of treatment failure. This is compounded by a lack of level 1 evidence to guide approaches. The optimal management of prosthetic joint infections requires a multi-disciplinary approach combined with shared decision making with the patient.

AIMS

This article describes the approach to prosthetic joint infections in the setting of treatment failure.

SOURCES

Narrative review based on literature review from PubMed. There was no time limit on the studies included. In addition, the reference list for included studies were reviewed for literature saturation with manual searching of clinical guidelines. Management approaches described incorporate evidence- and eminence-based recommendations from expert guidelines and clinical studies, where applicable.

CONTENT

The surgical and antimicrobial approaches for prosthetic joint infections are described for first-line treatment of prosthetic joint infections and approaches in the event of treatment failure. Management approaches are based on an understanding of the role the biofilm plays in the pathogenesis of prosthetic joint infections. The management of these infections aims to fulfil two key goals: to eradicate the biofilm-associated microorganisms and, to maintain a functional joint and quality of life. In treatment failure, these goals are not always feasible, and the role of the multi-disciplinary team and shared-decision making are prominent.

IMPLICATIONS

Prosthetic joint surgery is a high-volume surgery, and the demand for this surgery is continually increasing. With this, the number of infections requiring expert care will also increase. Eminence-based management approaches have been established to guide treatment failure until knowledge gaps in optimal management are addressed by well-designed, clinical trials.

Outcomes of repeat two-stage exchange hip arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection

Aims

The increasing infection burden after total hip arthroplasty (THA) has seen a rise in the use of two-stage exchange arthroplasty and the use of increasingly powerful antibiotics at the time of this procedure. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of failed two-stage revisions during the past decade. The aim of this study was to clarify the outcome of repeat two-stage revision THA following a failed two-stage exchange due to recurrent prosthetic joint infection (PJI).

Patients and Methods

We identified 42 patients who underwent a two-stage revision THA having already undergone at least one previous two stage procedure for infection, between 2000 and 2015. There were 23 women and 19 men. Their mean age was 69.3 years (48 to 81). The outcome was analyzed at a minimum follow-up of two years.

Results

A satisfactory control of infection and successful outcome was seen in 26 patients (57%). There therefore remained persistent symptoms that either required further surgery or chronic antibiotic suppression in 16 patients (38%). One-third of patients had died by the time of two years’ follow-up.

Conclusion

The rate of failure and complication rate of repeat two-stage exchange THA for PJI is high and new methods of treatment including host optimization, immunomodulation, longer periods between stages, and new and more powerful forms of antimicrobial treatment should be investigated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):110–115.

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.

Repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty for prosthetic hip re-infection

Aims

Recurrent infection following two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication. The purpose of this study was to report the survival of repeat two-stage revision hip arthroplasty, describe complications, and identify risk factors for failure.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively identified 19 hips (19 patients) that had undergone repeat two-stage revision THA for infection between 2000 to 2013. There were seven female patients (37%) and the mean age was 60 years (30 to 85). Survival free from revision was assessed via Kaplan-Meier analysis. The patients were classified according to the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) system, and risk factors for failure were identified. Mean follow-up was four years (2 to 11).

Results

Gram-positive bacteria were responsible for 16/17 (94%) of the re-infections where microbes were identified. Following the repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty, survival free from any revision was 74% (95% confidence interval (CI) 56% to 96%, 14 at risk) at two years and 45% (95% CI 25% to 75%, five at risk) at five years. Failure to control infection resulted in re-operation or revision in 42%A of patients (8/19). Survival free from revision was not dependent on host grade.

Conclusion

Re-infection after two-stage exchange hip arthroplasty for PJI presents a challenging scenario. Repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty has a low survival free from revision at five years (45%) and a high rate of re-infection (42%). Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1157-61.

Intravenous drug abuse is a risk factor in the failure of two-stage treatment for infected total hip arthroplasty

Reinfection after two-stage revision hip arthroplasty (RHA) is still a complex issue. Only few studies revealed the factors affecting the success rate in the treatment of periprosthetic hip infection (PHI), especially risk factors. A retrospective study was conducted using records of 30 patients underwent two-stage RHA for infected total hip arthroplasty (THA). Treatment was defined as successful if a patient did not need any reoperation or invasive procedure such as image-guided drainage during the two years after reimplantation. Treatment was defined as failure if any surgery or invasive procedure or long-term antibiotic suppression was considered necessary to control infection. Four patients had infection recurrence defined as failed and three of them had intravenous drug abuse. Twenty-six patients had no infection recurrence at the end of follow-up and one of them had intravenous drug abuse but quitting after surgery. We suggest that once adequate cleaning up achieved, risk of reinfection may be little even in immunocompromised patients with RHA because of relative less old age than those with revisional total knee arthroplasty. Patients of the reinfection group were younger and non-obese with adequate nutritional status. We may consider intravenous drug abuse could take a great toll on health and lead to reinfection. Finally, we suggest performing the gold-standard two-stage reimplantation technique to manage cases with infection, educating drug abusers regarding the risk of surgical failure, and implementing a quitting program at least 1 year before the index surgery.

Patients With Failed Prior Two-Stage Exchange Have Poor Outcomes After Further Surgical Intervention

BACKGROUND

Failure of 2-stage exchange arthroplasty for the management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) poses a major clinical challenge. There is a paucity of information regarding the outcomes of further surgical intervention in these patients. Thus, we aim to report the clinical outcomes of subsequent surgery for a failed prior 2-stage exchange arthroplasty.

METHODS

Our institutional database was used to identify 60 patients (42 knees and 18 hips), with a failed prior 2-stage exchange, who underwent further surgical intervention between 1998 and 2012, and had a minimum 2-year follow-up. A retrospective review was performed to extract relevant clinical information, including mortality, microbiology, and subsequent surgeries. Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria were used to define PJI, and treatment success was defined using Delphi criteria.

RESULTS

Irrigation and debridement (I&D) was performed after a failed 2-stage exchange in 61.7% of patients; 56.8% subsequently failed. Forty patients underwent an intended second 2-stage exchange; 6 cases required a spacer exchange. Reimplantation occurred only in 65% of cases, and 61.6% had infection controlled. The 14 cases that were not reimplanted resulted in 6 retained spacers, 5 amputations, 2 PJI-related mortalities, and 1 arthrodesis.

CONCLUSION

Further surgical intervention after a failed prior 2-stage exchange arthroplasty has poor outcomes. Although I&D has a high failure rate, many patients who are deemed candidates for a second 2-stage exchange either do not undergo reimplantation or fail after reimplantation. The management of PJI clearly remains imperfect, and there is a dire need for further innovations that may improve the care of these patients.

One-stage Revision With Catheter Infusion of Intraarticular Antibiotics Successfully Treats Infected THA

BACKGROUND

Two-stage revision surgery for infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) is commonly advocated, but substantial morbidity and expense are associated with this technique. In certain cases of infected THA, treatment with one-stage revision surgery and intraarticular infusion of antibiotics may offer a reasonable alternative with the distinct advantage of providing a means of delivering the drug in high concentrations.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We describe a protocol for intraarticular delivery of antibiotics to the hip through an indwelling catheter combined with one-stage revision surgery and examine (1) the success as judged by eradication of infection at 1 year when treating chronically infected cemented stems; (2) success in treating late-onset acute infections in well-ingrown cementless stems; and (3) what complications were associated with this approach in a small case series.

METHODS

Between January 2002 and July 2013, 30 patients (30 hips) presented to the senior author for treatment of infected THA. Of those, 21 patients (21 hips) with infected cemented THAs underwent débridement and single-stage revision to cementless total hip implants followed by catheter infusion of intraarticular antibiotics. Nine patients (nine hips) with late-onset acute infections in cementless THA had bone-ingrown implants. These patients were all more than 2 years from their original surgery and had acute symptoms of infection for 4 to 9 days. Seven had their original THA elsewhere, and two were the author's patients. All were symptom-free until the onset of their infection, and none had postoperative wound complications, fever, or prolonged pain suggestive of a more chronic process. They were treated with débridement and head and liner exchange, again followed by catheter infusion of intraarticular antibiotics. During this time period, this represented all infected THAs treated by the senior author, and all were treated with this protocol; no patient underwent two-stage exchange during this time, and no patients were lost to followup. At the time of the surgery, two Hickman catheters were placed in each hip to begin intraarticular delivery of antibiotics in the early postoperative period. Antibiotics were infused daily into the hip for 6 weeks with the tubes used for infusion only. Eleven of the single-stage revisions and four of the hips treated with débridement had methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Patients were considered free of infection if they had no clinical signs of infection and had a normal C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate at 1 year. Complications were ascertained by chart review.

RESULTS

Twenty of 21 (95%) infections in patients who had single-stage revision for chronically infected cemented THA were apparently free from infection and remained so at a mean followup of 63 months (range, 25-157 months). One case grew Candida albicans in the operative cultures and remained free of signs of infection after rerevision followed by infusion of fluconazole. The nine cementless THAs treated with débridement and head/liner exchange all remained free of signs of infection at a mean followup of 74 months (range, 62-121 months). Few complications were associated with the technique. Four patients had elevated serum levels of vancomycin without renal function changes and two patients had transient blood urea nitrogen/creatinine elevations with normal vancomycin levels that resolved with dosage adjustments. No patient had evidence of permanent renal damage. None of the patients in this study developed a chronic fistula or had significant drainage from the catheter site.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-stage revision for chronically infected cemented THA and débridement of bone-ingrown cementless THA with late-onset acute infection followed with indwelling catheter antibiotic infusion can result in infection eradication even when resistant organisms are involved. Larger study groups would better assess this technique and prospective comparisons to more traditional one- and two-stage revision techniques for infected THA will likely require multi-institutional approaches.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Recurrent Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Irrigation and Debridement With Component Retention Is Most Often Due to Identical Organisms

BACKGROUND

Irrigation and debridement with prosthetic retention (I&D) is an oft-utilized treatment option for PJI, despite its known limited success. While it is known that nearly half of all patients treated with I&D have recurrent infection, the organism persistence between infection events remains unreported. In addition, identifying those cases in which I&D routinely failed to eradicate the infection (not simply prevent recurrent infection) may allow improved patient selection for this less morbid procedure-a difficult task to date.

METHODS

Using an institutional database, 146 patients (153 joints) undergoing I&D between April 2000 and July 2013 were identified. There were 60 hips (40%). The overall success rate of I&D in this group was 52% (80/153). The failure group was limited to those patients with growth on culture at both initial failure and recurrent failure (46 cases). Analyses were performed to identify potential predictors of failed I&D and organism persistence in those cases.

RESULTS

In the study group, 83.7% (36/43) of cases failed with the same organism. Knees with failed I&D had an organism persistence of 92.3% (24/26) compared with 70.5% (12/17; P = .09) for the hip. Patients initially infected with Staphylococcus aureus (specifically methicillin-resistant [13/13]) had a higher risk of persistent PJI (96%; 24/25) compared to other organisms (66.7%; 12/18; P = .01).

CONCLUSION

I&D had a success rate of approximately 50% and typically failed due to organism persistence rather than a new infection. Given that persistent infection was most common in knees and S aureus, I&D should have a limited role in treating PJI, especially in these cases.

AAHKS Symposium: State-of-the-Art Management of Tough and Unsolved Problems in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Incompletely solved problems in hip and knee arthroplasty present ongoing practice challenges.

METHODS

Content experts summarized treatment options and preferred treatment methods for 4 incompletely solved problems in hip and knee arthroplasty.

RESULTS

The problems chosen for discussion in this symposium included 2 soft tissue problems: chronic extensor mechanism deficiency after total knee arthroplasty and abductor deficiency after total hip arthroplasty (THA), recurrent infection after a 2-stage procedure for infected THA or total knee arthroplasties, and pelvic discontinuity after THA.

CONCLUSION

The approaches outlined may provide guidance on management of these different problems. For surgeons and others in the orthopedic community interested in innovation, these challenges also present ripe opportunities to improve the care of patients with unmet needs.

One-stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection of the hip

Exchange arthroplasty remains the gold standard of treatment of established prosthetic joint infection. This can be achieved using a one or two stage approach. The ENDO-Klinik, in Hamburg, has pioneered the one-stage technique since 1970 utilising antibiotic loaded acrylic cement (ALAC). This editorial discusses the relevant literature and describes the indications and surgical technique employed by the ENDO-Klinik Hamburg.

One-Stage Revision for Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a challenging complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is preferred for treating chronic PJI of THA, although specialized centers have reported comparable outcomes with protocol-based, 1-stage exchange arthroplasty. A main requirement is presurgical determination of the infecting organism's sensitivity. The therapeutic goal is control of the infection and maintenance of joint function. It offers advantages, including a single operative procedure, fewer antibiotics, and reduced hospitalization time and relative overall costs.

Prosthetic joint infection

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a tremendous burden for individual patients as well as the global health care industry. While a small minority of joint arthroplasties will become infected, appropriate recognition and management are critical to preserve or restore adequate function and prevent excess morbidity. In this review, we describe the reported risk factors for and clinical manifestations of PJI. We discuss the pathogenesis of PJI and the numerous microorganisms that can cause this devastating infection. The recently proposed consensus definitions of PJI and approaches to accurate diagnosis are reviewed in detail. An overview of the treatment and prevention of this challenging condition is provided.

The influence of storage temperature on the antibiotic release of vancomycin-loaded polymethylmethacrylate

Periprosthetic joint infection is devastating and increases medical expenditure and socioeconomic burden. Antibiotic-loaded cement spacer is useful in the interim period before the reimplantation surgery. Prefabricated antibiotic-loaded cement spacers can decrease operation time but have been limitedly used clinically. In the literature, there is no clear recommendation on the storage temperature for the prefabricated cement spacers. We used an in vitro model to analyze whether the storage temperature at 25°C, 4°C, or −20°C for 2 weeks or 3 months could affect the release of vancomycin from the cement. We found that the storage temperature and time had no significant effects on the pattern and amount of vancomycin release. The patterns of vancomycin release from the cement stored at different temperatures were similar with an abrupt release in the first 3 days and steadily declined in the following period. This study provides a preliminary result to justify the storage of fabricating antibiotic-loaded cement spacer sterilely packed at room temperature. Further studies to examine the effects of storage temperature on the mechanical strength and the release pattern of other antibiotics should be done to provide more evidence to support the clinical use of prefabricated ready-to-use antibiotic-loaded cement spacer.