Mechanical failure of articulating polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) spacers in two-stage revision hip arthroplasty: the risk factors and the impact on interim function

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.

Evaluating Modern Spacer Options and Outcomes in Revision Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

A 2-stage revision continues to be the standard treatment for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in hip arthroplasty. The use of "functional" spacers may allow patients to return to daily living while optimizing their health for revision surgery. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of different spacer types regarding infection eradication, mechanical complications, and functional outcomes.

METHODS

Patients who have complete Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria for diagnosis of PJI that underwent one-stage or 2-stage revision were queried in an institutional surgical database between 2002 and 2022. Out of 286 patients, 210 met our inclusion criteria and were retrospectively reviewed for demographics, laboratory values, functional and patient-reported outcomes, and subsequent revisions. The study population had 54.3% women, a mean age of 61 years old, and a mean follow-up of 3.7 ± 3.2 years. There was no difference between age, body mass index, or Charlson Comorbidity Index scores between each cohort. Spacers were categorized as nonfunctional static, nonfunctional articulating, or functional articulating. Functional spacers were defined as those that allowed full weight bearing with no restrictions. Delphi criteria were used to define revision success, and failure was defined as a recurrent or persistent infection following definitive surgery.

RESULTS

There was a significantly lower reoperation rate after a definitive implant in the functional articulating cohort (P = .003), with a trending higher infection eradication rate and a lower rate of spacer failure compared to the nonfunctional spacer cohort. At 5 years, functional articulating spacers had a 94.1% survivorship rate, nonfunctional articulating spacers had an 81.2% survival rate, and nonfunctional static spacers had a 71.4% survival rate. In the functional articulating spacer cohort, 14.6% had yet to get reimplanted, with an average follow-up time of 1.4 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Within this large cohort of similar demographics, functional articulating spacers may result in better clinical outcomes and infection eradication during 2-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI.

Articulating Hip Spacers with a Constrained Acetabular Liner: Effect of Acetabular Bone Loss and Cementation Quality

Articulating hip spacers for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) offer numerous advantages over static spacers such as improved patient mobilization, hip functionality, and soft tissue tension. Our study aimed to determine complication rates of a functional articulating spacer using a constrained liner to determine the role of acetabular cementation mantle and bone loss on the need for second-stage surgery. A retrospective review of 103 patients was performed and demographic information, spacer components and longevity, spacer-related complications, reinfection rates, and grade of bone loss and acetabular cement mantle quality were determined. There was no significant difference in spacer-related complications or reinfection rate between PJI and native hip infections. 33 of 103 patients (32.0%) elected to retain their spacers. Between patients who retained their initial spacer and those who underwent reimplantation surgery, there was not a significant difference in cement mantle grade (p = 0.52) or degree of bone loss (p = 0.78). Functional articulating antibiotic spacers with cemented constrained acetabular liners demonstrate promising early results in the treatment of periprosthetic and native hip infections. The rate of dislocation events was low. Further efforts to improve cement fixation may help decrease the need for second-stage reimplantation surgery.

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.

Prosthetic Joint Infections: Biofilm Formation, Management, and the Potential of Mesoporous Bioactive Glass as a New Treatment Option

Infection of prosthetic joints is one of the biggest challenges to a successful replacement of the joint after a total joint arthroplasty. Such infections are caused by bacterial colonies that are difficult to treat by systemic delivery of antibiotics. Local delivery of antibiotics can prove to be the solution to such a devastating outcome that impacts patients' health and ability to regain function in their joints as well as costs the healthcare system millions of dollars every year. This review will discuss prosthetic joint infections in detail with a focus on the development, management, and diagnosis of the infections. Surgeons often opt to use polymethacrylate cement locally to deliver antibiotics; however, due to the rapid release of antibiotics, non-biodegradability, and high chance of reinfection, the search for alternatives is in high demand. One of the most researched alternatives to current treatments is the use of biodegradable and highly compatible bioactive glass. The novelty of this review lies in its focus on mesoporous bioactive glass as a potential alternative to current treatments for prosthetic joint infection. Mesoporous bioactive glass is the focus of this review because it has a higher capacity to deliver biomolecules, stimulate bone growth, and treat infections after prosthetic joint replacement surgeries. The review also examines different synthesis methods, compositions, and properties of mesoporous bioactive glass, highlighting its potential as a biomaterial for the treatment of joint infections.

Mechanical complications of hip spacers: a systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Temporary spacers used in the staged revision of a hip prosthetic joint infection (PJI) have been associated with several mechanical complications with very variable reported general complications rates up to 73%. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the mechanical complications associated with hip antibiotic-loaded spacers when treating periprosthetic hip PJI.

METHODS

Through an electronic systematic search of PubMed, articles reporting mechanical complications of spacers used in the treatment of hip PJI were reviewed. Dislocations, spacer fracture, femoral fractures, and acetabular lysis rates were evaluated.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included. Standardized molded spacers had a significantly higher weighted mean of total mechanical complication rates (37.2%) when compared to standardized preformed spacers (13.8%, p = 0.039), while no significant difference was found between molded spacers and manually shaped spacers. Spacer dislocation was the most frequent complication. No significant difference in mechanical complication rate was found between spacers with and without any metallic component.

CONCLUSIONS

Spacer placement in chronic PJI of the hip with bone and soft-tissue defects is challenging and bears a high risk of mechanical failures and progressive bone loss during the interim period. A careful patient selection for spacer implantation is mandatory.

Quality of life, infection control, and complication rates using a novel custom-made articulating hip spacer during two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection

INTRODUCTION

Two-stage revision remains the gold standard treatment for most chronically infected and complex total hip arthroplasty infections. To improve patient outcome and reduce complication rates, we have developed a novel custom-made articulating hip spacer technique and present our short-term results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between November 2017 and November 2019, 27 patients (mean age 70 years) underwent two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection of the hip using the articulating spacer design described here. We retrospectively analyzed spacer-related complications as well as rates for complication, infection control, and implant survivorship after final reimplantation. Furthermore, we prospectively collected patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores prior to spacer implantation, with the spacer and after reimplantation of the new prosthesis.

RESULTS

An additional round of spacer exchange was performed in two patients (8.3%), persistent wound discharge was the reason in both cases. We had one (4.2%) spacer-related mechanical complication, a dislocation that was treated with closed reduction. After reimplantation, infection control was achieved in 96% with an implant survivorship of 92% after a mean follow-up time of 19 (range 7-32, SD 7.2) months. While the scores for VR-12 MCS, VAS hip pain and patient-reported overall satisfaction significantly improved after first stage surgery, the scores for WOMAC, UCLA and VR-12 PCS significantly improved after second stage surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our two-stage approach for periprosthetic joint infection shows high infection eradication and implant survivorship rates at short-term follow-up. Spacer-related complication rates were low, and we achieved high patient satisfaction rates and low pain levels already during the spacer period. To further simplify comparison between different spacer designs, we propose a new hip spacer classification system.

Infection after total joint replacement of the hip and knee: research programme including the INFORM RCT

Background

People with severe osteoarthritis, other joint conditions or injury may have joint replacement to reduce pain and disability. In the UK in 2019, over 200,000 hip and knee replacements were performed. About 1 in 100 replacements becomes infected, and most people with infected replacements require further surgery.

Objectives

To investigate why some patients are predisposed to joint infections and how this affects patients and the NHS, and to evaluate treatments.

Design

Systematic reviews, joint registry analyses, qualitative interviews, a randomised controlled trial, health economic analyses and a discrete choice questionnaire.

Setting

Our studies are relevant to the NHS, to the Swedish health system and internationally.

Participants

People with prosthetic joint infection after hip or knee replacement and surgeons.

Interventions

Revision of hip prosthetic joint infection with a single- or two-stage procedure.

Main outcome measures

Long-term patient-reported outcomes and reinfection. Cost-effectiveness of revision strategies over 18 months from two perspectives: health-care provider and Personal Social Services, and societal.

Data sources

National Joint Registry; literature databases; published cohort studies; interviews with 67 patients and 35 surgeons; a patient discrete choice questionnaire; and the INFORM (INFection ORthopaedic Management) randomised trial.

Review methods

Systematic reviews of studies reporting risk factors, diagnosis, treatment outcomes and cost comparisons. Individual patient data meta-analysis.

Results

In registry analyses, about 0.62% and 0.75% of patients with hip and knee replacement, respectively, had joint infection requiring surgery. Rates were four times greater after aseptic revision. The costs of inpatient and day-case admissions in people with hip prosthetic joint infection were about five times higher than those in people with no infection, an additional cost of > £30,000. People described devastating effects of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection and treatment. In the treatment of hip prosthetic joint infection, a two-stage procedure with or without a cement spacer had a greater negative impact on patient well-being than a single- or two-stage procedure with a custom-made articulating spacer. Surgeons described the significant emotional impact of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection and the importance of a supportive multidisciplinary team. In systematic reviews and registry analyses, the risk factors for hip and knee prosthetic joint infection included male sex, diagnoses other than osteoarthritis, high body mass index, poor physical status, diabetes, dementia and liver disease. Evidence linking health-care setting and surgeon experience with prosthetic joint infection was inconsistent. Uncemented fixation, posterior approach and ceramic bearings were associated with lower infection risk after hip replacement. In our systematic review, synovial fluid alpha-defensin and leucocyte esterase showed high diagnostic accuracy for prosthetic joint infection. Systematic reviews and individual patient data meta-analysis showed similar reinfection outcomes in patients with hip or knee prosthetic joint infection treated with single- and two-stage revision. In registry analysis, there was a higher rate of early rerevision after single-stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection, but, overall, 40% fewer operations are required as part of a single-stage procedure than as part of a two-stage procedure. The treatment of hip or knee prosthetic joint infection with early debridement and implant retention may be effective in > 60% of cases. In the INFORM randomised controlled trial, 140 patients with hip prosthetic joint infection were randomised to single- or two-stage revision. Eighteen months after randomisation, pain, function and stiffness were similar between the randomised groups (p = 0.98), and there were no differences in reinfection rates. Patient outcomes improved earlier in the single-stage than in the two-stage group. Participants randomised to a single-stage procedure had lower costs (mean difference –£10,055, 95% confidence interval –£19,568 to –£542) and higher quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval –0.07 to 0.18) than those randomised to a two-stage procedure. Single-stage was the more cost-effective option, with an incremental net monetary benefit at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year of £11,167 (95% confidence interval £638 to £21,696). In a discrete choice questionnaire completed by 57 patients 18 months after surgery to treat hip prosthetic joint infection, the most valued characteristics in decisions about revision were the ability to engage in valued activities and a quick return to normal activity.

Limitations

Some research was specific to people with hip prosthetic joint infection. Study populations in meta-analyses and registry analyses may have been selected for joint replacement and specific treatments. The INFORM trial was not powered to study reinfection and was limited to 18 months’ follow-up. The qualitative study subgroups were small.

Conclusions

We identified risk factors, diagnostic biomarkers, effective treatments and patient preferences for the treatment of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection. The risk factors include male sex, diagnoses other than osteoarthritis, specific comorbidities and surgical factors. Synovial fluid alpha-defensin and leucocyte esterase showed high diagnostic accuracy. Infection is devastating for patients and surgeons, both of whom describe the need for support during treatment. Debridement and implant retention is effective, particularly if performed early. For infected hip replacements, single- and two-stage revision appear equally efficacious, but single-stage has better early results, is cost-effective at 18-month follow-up and is increasingly used. Patients prefer treatments that allow full functional return within 3–9 months.

Future work

For people with infection, develop information, counselling, peer support and care pathways. Develop supportive care and information for patients and health-care professionals to enable the early recognition of infections. Compare alternative and new treatment strategies in hip and knee prosthetic joint infection. Assess diagnostic methods and establish NHS diagnostic criteria.

Study registration

The INFORM randomised controlled trial is registered as ISRCTN10956306. All systematic reviews were registered in PROSPERO (as CRD42017069526, CRD42015023485, CRD42018106503, CRD42018114592, CRD42015023704, CRD42017057513, CRD42015016559, CRD42015017327 and CRD42015016664).

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Mechanical strength of antibiotic-loaded PMMA spacers in two-stage revision surgery

Background

Antibiotic-loaded polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement spacers provide high local antibiotic concentrations and patient mobility during the interim period of two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). This study compares mechanical characteristics of six dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement (dALBC) preparations made from three different PMMA bone cements. The study`s main objective was to determine the effect of time and antibiotic concentration on mechanical strength of dALBCs frequently used for spacer fabrication in the setting of two-stage revision for PJI.

Methods

A total of 84 dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement specimens made of either Copal spacem, Copal G + V or Palacos R + G were fabricated. Each specimen contained 0.5 g of gentamicin and either 2 g (low concentration) or 4 g (high concentration) of vancomycin powder per 40 g bone cement. The bending strength was determined at two different timepoints, 24 h and six weeks after spacer fabrication, using the four-point bending test.

Results

Preparations made from Copal G + V showed the highest bending strength after incubation for 24 h with a mean of 57.6 ± 1.2 MPa (low concentration) and 50.4 ± 4.4 MPa (high concentration). After incubation for six weeks the bending strength had decreased in all six preparations and Palacos R + G showed the highest bending strength in the high concentration group (39.4 ± 1.6 MPa). All low concentration preparations showed superior mechanical strength compared to their high concentration (4 g of vancomycin) counterpart. This difference was statistically significant for Copal spacem and Copal G + V (both p < 0.001), but not for Palacos R + G (p = 0.09).

Conclusions

This study suggests that mechanical strength of antibiotic-loaded PMMA bone cement critically decreases even over the short time period of six weeks, which is the recommended interim period in the setting of two-stage revision. This potentially results in an increased risk for PMMA spacer fracture at the end of the interim period and especially in patients with prolonged interim periods. Finally, we conclude that intraoperative addition of 4 g of vancomycin powder per 40 g of gentamicin-premixed Palacos R + G (Group D) is mechanically the preparation of choice if a dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacer with high antibiotic concentrations and good stability is warranted. In any case the written and signed informed consent including the off-label use of custom-made antibiotic-loaded PMMA bone cement spacers must be obtained before surgery.

Articulated bipolar vs. non-articulated conventional spacers: A comparative study of results from two-stage treatment of chronic septic arthritis in prosthetic or native hips

INTRODUCTION

Infection is a serious complication of 0.2-0.7% of primary total hip arthroplasties (THA) and 1-22% of prosthetic revisions. The objective of our study was to compare two types of spacers (unipolar versus bipolar) for two-stage revisions of periprosthetic hip infections. The primary hypothesis was that bipolar spacers have fewer mechanical complications than unipolar spacers. The secondary hypothesis was that bipolar spacers decrease the rate of septic revisions and promote primary prosthesis reimplantation.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

This retrospective, monocentric, multi-operator study was carried out between January 2012 and July 2018, including patients operated on for septic arthritis of the native or prosthetic hip (two-stage procedure). The patients were divided into two groups: group A, including the articulated spacers and group B, including the unipolar spacers. We studied the complications of the spacers and the course of the infection over a minimum of two years. Functional status was assessed by the Postel Merle d'Aubigné (PMA) score, the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and pre- and postoperative patient satisfaction scores.

RESULTS

We collected data for 39 hips from 37 patients (mean age 63, 22 men and 14 women: 16 patients in group A, 21 in group B). We found no mechanical complications in group A versus 12 (52%) in group B. At 2 years, 93.8% of patients in group A no longer had any signs indicative of an active infection, compared with 71.4% in group B. In group A, the median PMA score increased from 5.5 (4-10.5) to 13.5 (12.5-15.5) and the HHS score from 27.5 (17-41.5) to 79 (64.5-89.5), postoperatively. In the final group B, the PMA score increased from 7 (6-9) to 14 (12-16) and the HHS score from 24 (11-41) to 72 (48-82) postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

The use of articulated spacers in THA or septic THA two-stage revision significantly reduces the occurrence of mechanical complications in the short term, as well as the pain between the two procedures.

LEVEL OF PROOF

IV.

[Individual megaspacers in two-stage revision of infected total hip arthroplasty-clinical and functional results after 2 years : Individual metal-endoskeleton cement spacer (iMECS)]

BACKGROUND

Large femoral defects in late periprosthetic infection (PPI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) often require the use of large, individual metal endoskeleton-reinforced cement spacers (iMECS).

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to record the clinical, radiological and functional results (Harris Hip Score HHS) up to the 2 years after treatment of a PPI using an iMECS. Major patient-specific parameters were to be evaluated with regard to the treatment outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The collective of this single-center retrospective cohort study comprised 29 patients. The mean follow-up was 24.4 months (range: 23.0 to 27.6 months). The absence of infection after endoprosthetic hip joint reconstruction was rated as successful treatment. The two patient groups (successful (S)/not successful (nS)) were compared with regard to gender distribution, the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), the number of previous septic changes, and the rate of polymicrobial and difficult-to-treat infections.

RESULTS

The average CCI in the total collective was 6.4 points. Joint reconstruction was possible in 23 of 29 patients (79%); 2 years after PPI treatment 4 patients were not available for a follow-up examination (2 deceased, 2 unable to participate). At the time of the follow-up, 17 of the 29 patients had received a joint reconstruction and were free of infection, with an average HHS of 75 points. There were no iMECS-associated complications requiring revision. Only the initial CCI (S: 4.1 points; nS: 9.7 points) differed significantly between the patient groups (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In the case of large femoral defects, iMECS provide secure temporary stabilization. The chance of a successful joint reconstruction is closely related to the individual comorbidities profile.

Sobrevida em longo prazo do espaçador cimentado para quadril: Relato de caso

Apresentamos um caso único de um homem de 56 anos que deambulou com um espaçador cimentado para quadril durante 11 anos. Após ser submetido a uma hemiartroplastia em virtude de um acidente de carro, o paciente desenvolveu uma infecção articular periprotética (IAP) vários anos depois, sendo submetido à técnica de revisão da etapa 1. Com a resolução da infecção depois da etapa 1, o paciente recusou a segunda etapa, devido à satisfação com o espaçador cimentado por quase 11 anos.

Pelo que sabemos, este é o caso mais longo relatado de um espaçador cimentado em um paciente deambulando. Este caso demonstra a confiabilidade mecânica dos espaçadores cimentados reforçados com metal que podem ser mantidos por um prazo longo em pacientes selecionados.

Destination Joint Spacers: A Similar Infection-Relief Rate But Higher Complication Rate Compared with Two-Stage Revision

Objective

To evaluated the clinical outcomes of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) patients with destination joint spacer compared with that of two‐stage revision.

Methods

From January 2006 to December 2017, data of PJI patients who underwent implantation with antibiotic‐impregnated cement spacers in our center due to chronic PJI were collected retrospectively. The diagnosis of PJI was based on the American Society for Musculoskeletal Infection (MSIS) criteria for PJI. One of the following must be met for diagnosis of PJI: a sinus tract communicating with the prosthesis; a pathogenis isolated by culture from two separate tissue or fluid samples obtained from the affected prosthetic joint; four of the following six criteria exist: (i) elevated ESR and CRP; (ii) elevate dsynovial fluid white blood cell (WBC) count; (iii) elevated synovial fluid neutrophil percentage (PMN%); (iv) presence of purulence in the affected joint; (v) isolation of a microorganism in one periprosthetic tissue or fluid culture; (vi) more than five neutrophilsper high‐power fields in five high‐power fields observed from histological analysis of periprosthetic tissue at ×400 magnification. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and laboratory test results were recorded. All patients were followed up regularly after surgery, the infection‐relief rates were recorded, Harris hip score (HHS) and knee society score (KSS) were used for functional evaluation, a Doppler ultrasonography of the lower limb veins was performed for complication evaluation. The infection‐relief rates and complications were compared between destination joint spacer group and two‐stage revision group.

Results

A total of 62 patients who were diagnosed with chronic PJI were enrolled, with an age of 65.13 ± 9.94 (39–88) years. There were 21 cases in the destination joint spacer group and 41 cases in the temporary spacer group, namely, two‐stage revision group (reimplantation of prosthesis after infection relief). The Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) in the destination joint spacer group was higher than that in the temporary spacer group, and this might be the primary reason for joint spacer retainment. As for infection‐relief rate, there were three cases of recurrent infection (14.29%) in the destination joint spacer group and four cases of recurrent infection (9.76%) in the two‐stage revision group, there were no significant differences with regard to infection‐relief rate. Moreover, there two patients who suffered from spacer fractures, three cases of dislocation, one case of a periarticular fracture, and three cases of deep venous thrombosis in destination joint spacer group, while there was only one case of periprosthetic hip joint fracture, one case of dislocation, and one patient suffered from deep venous thrombosis of the lower extremity in two‐stage revision. The incidence of complications in the destination joint spacer group was higher than that of two‐stage revision.

Conclusions

In summary, the present work showed that a destination joint spacer might be provided as a last resort for certain PJI patients due to similar infection‐relief rate compared with two‐stage revision.

Improved patient reported outcomes with functional articulating spacers in two-stage revision of the infected hip

BACKGROUND

Two-stage revision arthroplasty with an antibiotic-loaded spacer is the treatment of choice in chronically infected total hip arthroplasties. Interval spacers can be functional articulating or prefabricated. Functional results of these spacers have scarcely been reported.

AIM

To compare retrospectively the patient reported outcome and infection eradication rate after two-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip with the use of a functional articulating or prefabricated spacer. 

METHODS

All patients with two-stage revision of a hip prosthesis at our hospital between 2003 and 2016 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into two groups; patients treated with a functional articulating spacer or with a prefabricated spacer. Patients completed the Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and the EQ-5D-3L (EQ-5D) and the EQ-5D quality of life thermometer (EQ-VAS) scores. Primary outcomes were patient reported outcome and infection eradication after two-stage revision. The results of both groups were compared to the patient acceptable symptom state for primary arthroplasty of the hip. Secondary outcomes were complications during spacer treatment and at final follow-up. Descriptive statistics, mean and range are used to represent the demographics of the patients. For numerical variables, students’ t-tests were used to assess the level of significance for differences between the groups, with 95% confidence intervals; for binary outcome, we used Fisher’s exact test.

RESULTS

We consecutively treated 55 patients with a prefabricated spacer and 15 patients with a functional articulating spacer of the hip. The infection eradication rates for functional articulating and prefabricated spacers were 93% and 78%, respectively (P > 0.05). With respect to the functional outcome, the Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and its subscores (all P < 0.01), the EQ-5D (P < 0.01) and the EQ-VAS scores (P < 0.05) were all significantly better for patients successfully treated with a functional articulating spacer. More patients in the functional articulating spacer group reached the patient acceptable symptom state for the HOOS pain, HOOS quality of life and EQ-VAS. The number of patients with a spacer dislocation was not significantly different for the functional articulating or prefabricated spacer group (P > 0.05). However, the number of dislocations per patient experiencing a dislocation was significantly higher for patients with a prefabricated spacer (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Functional articulating spacers lead to improved patient reported functional outcome and less perioperative complications after two-stage revision arthroplasty of an infected total hip prosthesis, while maintaining a similar infection eradication rate compared to prefabricated spacers.

Explantation, Followed by Serial Debridement Without Antibiotic Spacers and Subsequent Revision With Cementless Components, Is Associated With High Remission Rates and Low Mortality in Periprosthetic Hip Joint Infections

BACKGROUND

In difficult-to-treat cases, it is necessary to add debridement steps in prosthesis-free interval of 2-stage exchange. We aimed to analyze the functional and clinical outcome of patients treated with a multistage exchange of total hip arthroplasty without the use of spacers, rather only cementless implants.

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2018, 84 patients (mean age: 67.3 [39-90] years) suffering chronic late-onset periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) were treated using a multistage prosthesis exchange without spacers. The mean follow-up was 70 ± 45.3 [14-210] months. The treatment included prosthesis exchange and at least 1 additional revision step before a reimplantation, owing to ongoing acute infection in the prosthesis-free interval. High-efficiency antimicrobial therapy was administered in between, which was discontinued after cementless revision implantation.

RESULTS

The mean number of revisions between explantation and implantation was 2.6 (1-9). The most common microorganism was Staphylococcus epidermidis (53.6%) followed by Staphylococcus aureus (16.7%) and Cutibacterium acnes (11.9%). The bacterial load was more than one bacterium per patient in 38% of cases. All patients could be treated using a cementless implant. PJI remission was achieved in 92% of cases. Overall, 9 prostheses (11%) were replaced because of an ongoing PJI or fracture. The mean modified Harrison Hip Score was 63.4 (22-88) points. No patient died.

CONCLUSION

Multistage total hip arthroplasty exchange showed high remission rates and low mortality in difficult-to-treat cases. Spacer-free and multistage treatment had no negative effect on the success rate or functional outcome, consistent with the results of published 2-stage exchange studies. Implantation of an uncemented press-fit prosthesis was possible in all patients with no elevated periprosthetic fracture rate.

Progress of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in joint arthroplasty

Bone cement, consisting of polymethyl methacrylate, is a bioinert material used for prothesis fixation in joint arthroplasty. To treat orthopedic infections, such as periprosthetic joint infection, antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) was introduced into clinical practice. Recent studies have revealed the limitations of the antibacterial effect of ALBC. Moreover, with the increase in high infection risk patients and highly resistant microbes, more researches and modification of ALBC are required. This paper reviewed latest findings about ALBC for most popular and destructive pathogens, summarized the influence of antibiotic kind, drug dosage, application method, and environment towards characteristic of ALBC. Subsequently, new cement additives and clinical applications of ALBC in joint arthroplasty were also discussed.

Complications of Resection Arthroplasty in Two-Stage Revision for the Treatment of Periprosthetic Hip Joint Infection

Little data is available regarding complications associated with resection arthroplasty in the treatment of hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We assessed complications during and after two-stage revision using resection arthroplasty. In this retrospective study, 93 patients undergoing resection arthroplasty for hip PJI were included. Patients were assigned to a prosthesis-free interval of ≤10 weeks (group 1; 49 patients) or >10 weeks (group 2; 44 patients). The complication rates between groups were compared using the chi-squared test. The revision-free and infection-free survival was estimated using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Seventy-one patients (76%) experienced at least one local complication (overall 146 complications). Common complications were blood loss during reimplantation (n = 25) or during explantation (n = 23), persistent infection (n = 16), leg length discrepancy (n = 13) and reinfection (n = 9). Patients in group 1 experienced less complications after reimplantation (p = 0.012). With increasing severity of acetabular bone defects, higher incidence of complications (p = 0.008), periprosthetic bone fractures (p = 0.05) and blood loss (p = 0.039) was observed. The infection-free survival rate at 24 months was 93.9% in group 1 and 85.9% in group 2. The indication for resection arthroplasty needs to be evaluated carefully, considering the high rate of complications and reduced mobility, particularly if longer prosthesis-free intervals are used.