The use of augmented antibiotic-loaded cement spacer in periprosthetic joint infection patients with acetabular bone defect

How to create by your own a customized hip cement mega-spacer for a hip megaprosthesis two-stage revision surgery after oncologic limb-salvage surgery - Surgical technique and case report

Managing chronic periprosthetic infections in patients who have undergone limb-salvage surgery following a malignant bone tumor with megaprosthesis often involves a two-stage revision surgery with the use of a cement-spacer. This paper show details the preparation of a self-made intramedullary metal-stabilized mega-cement spacer for patients needing a two-stage revision surgery due to infection after oncologic bone tumor resection and limb-salvage surgery with megaprosthesis and present two clinical cases treated with this technique. The report provides a practical surgical technique to create a cement hip mega-spacer using readily available tools in most orthopedic surgical settings.

Cure rate of infections is not an argument for spacer in two-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip

INTRODUCTION

 A devastating complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Most frequently spacers (Sp) with or without antibiotics are implanted in a two-stage procedure even though not always indicated due to unknown pathogen, femoral and acetabular defects or muscular insufficiency.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database was conducted, analyzing the treatment of 44 consecutive cases with chronic PJI undergoing two-stage revision using a Girdlestone situation (GS) in the interim period between 01/2015 and 12/2018. Diagnostics included intraoperative microbiological cultures, histological analysis, sonication of the initial implant, analysis of hip aspiration, as well as laboratory diagnostics and blood cultures. We analyzed the general and age-group-specific success rate of treatment using GS. Furthermore, we compared our data with the current literature on spacer implantation regarding common complications.

RESULTS

In total, 21 female and 23 male patients at a mean age of 59.3 ± 9.6 years were included. Age groups were divided into young, mid-age, and elderly. In most patients, microbiology revealed Staphylococcus epidermidis in 39.1% of cases, following Staphylococcus lugdunensis and Staphylococcus aureus in 10.9% after THA explantation. For histology, Krenn and Morawietz type 2 (infectious type) was diagnosed in 40.9%, type 3 (infectious and abrade-induced type) in 25.0%. With GS, the total cure rate was 84.1% compared to 90.1% (range 61-100%) using Sp as described in the literature. Among age-groups, cure rate varied between 77.8 and 100%. Other complications, which only occurred in the mid-age and elderly group, included the necessity of transfusion in 31.1%, and in total, one periprosthetic fracture was identified (2.3%).

CONCLUSION

GS shows an acceptable cure rate at a minimum of 2 years when compared to the cure rate reported in the literature for Sp without major complications. For patients with increased risks for treatment failure using spacer, GS seems to be an alternative for chronic PJI when looking at the success rate of treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, Retrospective trial.

Fracture-Related Infection in Bicolumnar Acetabular Fracture: A Case Report

Case: A 51-year-old man was affected by a fracture-related infection after a bicolumnar acetabular fracture. A significant alteration of the anatomy was present; thus, a 3D-printed model was useful for planning. A two-stage treatment was planned: in the first stage, implant removal with irrigation and debridement was performed, while in the second stage, a new osteosynthesis and implant of a THA were planned. During the second stage, the patient suffered a cardiogenic shock, so a third surgical procedure was necessary to implant THA. Targeted antibiotic therapy was administered eight weeks after the first stage, with the resolution of the infection. Conclusions: The infection was resolved following the recent guidelines and treating it like a periprosthetic infection with a two-stage revision. A collaboration between specialists in orthopaedics and infectious disease, respectively, and using multidisciplinary approach, were mandatory.