Articular spacers in two-stage revision arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection of the hip and the knee

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.

Use of 1.5-Stage Functional Articulating Hip Spacers for Two-Stage Treatment of Hip Infection

BACKGROUND

A two-stage treatment is commonly used for chronic hip infections. This study compared the clinical efficacy and complications associated with 1.5-stage functional articulating hip spacers (FAHS) and handmade spacers utilized during two-stage treatment.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 50 patients who had hip infections, of which 41 were periprosthetic joint infections, 3 were internal fixation infections, and 6 had septic arthritis. They were divided into two groups according to the spacer type: 23 patients treated with handmade spacers comprising 1 to 2 Kirschner wires as an endoskeleton (group A) and 27 patients treated with 1.5-stage FAHS comprising a cemented femoral stem, metal femoral head, and polyethylene acetabular liner or cemented acetabular cup (group B). Clinical characteristics, surgical data, infection control rate, spacer complications, modified Harris hip, visual analog scale, and 36-item short-form physical functioning scale scores were compared between the groups. All patients were followed up for at least 24 months after the last surgical procedure.

RESULTS

No significant differences were noted in the infection eradication rate between the two groups (100 versus 96.30%, P = 1.0). The incidence of mechanical complications, especially spacer fracture, was significantly lower in group B than in group A (P = .044). Hip function and quality of life were significantly better in group B during the interim period. Group B patients had a longer interval time (median 7.40 versus 4.30 months, P = .004) and a lower reimplantation rate than group A patients (42.31 versus 82.61%, P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

The 1.5-stage FAHS surgical technique is feasible for the treatment of hip infection, with a lower mechanical complication rate, better hip function, and better quality of life during the interim period compared to that of handmade spacers. The 1.5-stage FAHS with maintained function could delay or negate the need for second-stage revision.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Characterizing recurrent infections after one-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection of the knee: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee represents a severe complication after 1.5% to 2% of primary total knee replacement. Although two-stage revision was considered the gold-standard treatment for PJI of the knee, in the last decades, more studies reported the outcomes of one-stage revisions. This systematic review aims to assess reinfection rate, infection-free survival after reoperation for recurrent infection, and the microorganisms involved in both primary and recurrent infection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of all studies reporting the outcome of one-stage revision for PJI of the knee up to September 2022, according to PRISMA criteria and AMSTAR2 guidelines, was performed. Patient demographics, clinical, surgical, and postoperative data were recorded.

PROSPERO ID

CRD42022362767.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with a total of 881 one-stage revisions for PJI of the knee were analyzed. A reinfection rate of 12.2% after an average follow-up of 57.6 months was reported. The most frequent causative microorganism were gram-positive bacteria (71.1%), gram-negative bacteria (7.1%), and polymicrobial infections (8%). The average postoperative knee society score was 81.5, and the average postoperative knee function score was 74.2. The infection-free survival after treatment for recurrent infection was 92.1%. The causative microorganisms at reinfections differed significantly from the primary infection (gram-positive 44.4%, gram-negative 11.1%).

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent a one-stage revision for PJI of the knee showed a reinfection rate lower or comparable to other surgical treatments as two-stage or DAIR (debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention). Reoperation for reinfection demonstrates a lower success compared to one-stage revision. Moreover, microbiology differs between primary infection and recurrent infection. Level of evidence Level IV.

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.

Two-stage revision in periprosthetic joint infection of the hip using a new intraoperatively molded articulating spacer design

Purpose

The treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is still under debate. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is the most common surgical procedure performed. This study analyzed a new functional articulating hip spacer called "Spaceflex" regarding the mechanical-related complications, the recurrent/persistent infection during the interval period, the overall infection-free survivorship after reimplantation, the overall complication/reoperation after reimplantation and the evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at three intervals of time: before the first stage, during the interval period, and at the final follow-up after reimplantation.

Methods

A consecutive series of 56 patients with chronic hip PJI undergoing two-stage prosthetic revision using a new intraoperatively molded articulating hip spacer design implanted by the same experienced surgeons was examined from January 2017 to December 2021. The demographic and clinical characteristics of the included patients were analyzed. Specifically, PROMs before the first stage, during the interval period, and at the final follow-up after reimplantation and complications reported during the interval period and after reimplantation were examined.

Results

The new functional articulating hip spacer was characterized by a low mechanical complication rate (5.8%) and an overall two-stage procedure success rate of 90.6% at the last follow-up. PROMs improved with the spacer during the interval period and at the final follow-up. Furthermore, the reinfection rate was in line with other case series with different spacer designs. Finally, low postoperative complication rates after reimplantation have been demonstrated.

Conclusions

Two-stage revision performed with a modular articulating spacer allows patients to preserve satisfactory functional and quality-of-life outcomes in the postoperative period, with a low risk of mechanical complications and without increasing the reinfection rate.

Articulating spacers: what are available and how to utilize them?

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most devastating complication following total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and is posing a global healthcare challenge as the demand for TJA mounts. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty with the placement of antibiotic-loaded spacers has been shown to be efficacious against chronic PJI. This study aimed to review the key concepts, types, and outcome evaluations of articulating spacers in the two-stage exchange for PJI. Previous studies indicated that articulating spacers have been widely used due to better functional improvement and a comparable infection control rate relative to static spacers. Several types of articulating spacers are reportedly available, including hand-made spacers, spacers fashioned from molds, commercially preformed spacers, spacers with additional metal or polyethylene elements, new or autoclaved prosthesis, custom-made articulating spacers, and 3D printing-assisted spacers. However, limited evidence suggested no significant difference in clinical outcomes among the different subtypes of articulating spacers. Surgeons should be familiar with different treatment strategies when using various spacers to know which is the most appropriate.

Antimicrobials in polymethylmethacrylate: from prevention to prosthetic joint infection treatment: basic principles and risk of resistance

BACKGROUND

Excellent revisions about antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) have been recently published. In the present article, we review the principles and limitations of local antibiotic delivery in the context of recent advances in the pathogenesis of prosthetic joint infections (PJI), with particular attention paid to the potential association between ALBC and antimicrobial resistance.

MAIN BODY

Recalcitrance of PJI is related to the ability of pathogens to adapt to particular environments present in bone tissue and protect themselves from host immunity in different ways. Accordingly, delivery of high local antimicrobial concentrations using ALBC is needed. Most relevant clinical data showing the efficacy of ALBC for PJI prophylaxis and treatment are reviewed, and we dissected the limitations on the basis of the recent findings from animal models and suggested that aminoglycosides, in particular, could not be the best option. One of the major concerns associated with ALBC is the emergence of resistance because of theoretical prolonged exposure to low antibiotic concentrations. We summarize the mechanisms for the selection of resistant microorganisms, and we critically reviewed the evidence from animal models and clinical data from observational and registry studies and concluded that there is no evidence to support this association.

CONCLUSION

While waiting for better evidence from well-designed clinical trials, ALBC shows a beneficial effect as a prophylaxis in arthroplasty, and to avoid the colonization of spacers used for two-stage revision in patients with PJI. Experimental models and clinical evidence suggest the need to achieve high local antimicrobial concentrations to obtain the highest prophylactic and therapeutic effect. The current evidence does not support the risk of increasing resistance with use of ALBC. In the future, it is necessary to evaluate new carriers and different antimicrobials to improve clinical outcomes.

Analysis of the clinical efficacy of two-stage revision surgery in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection in the knee: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a catastrophic complication that can occur following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Currently, the treatment for PJI mainly includes the use of antibiotics alone, prosthetic debridement lavage, primary revision, secondary revision, joint fusion, amputation, etc.

AIM

To explore the clinical effect of two-stage revision surgery for the treatment of PJI after TKA.

METHODS

The clinical data of 27 patients (3 males and 24 females; age range, 47–80 years; mean age, 66.7 ± 8.0 years; 27 knees) with PJI treated with two-stage revision surgery in our hospital between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. The following outcomes were compared for changes between preoperative and last follow-up results: Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) scores, knee range of motion (ROM), and infection cure rates.

RESULTS

All 27 patients were followed up (range, 13–112 mo). The ESR (14.5 ± 6.3 mm/h) and CRP (0.6 ± 0.4 mg/dL) of the patients at the last follow-up were significantly lower than those at admission; the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The postoperative VAS score (1.1 ± 0.7), HSS score (82.3 ± 7.1), and knee ROM (108.0° ± 19.7°) were significantly improved compared with those before the surgery; the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Of the 27 patients, 26 were cured of the infection, whereas 1 case had an infection recurrence; the infection control rate was 96.3%.

CONCLUSION

Two-stage revision surgery can effectively relieve pain, control infection, and retain good joint function in the treatment of PJI after TKA.

Comparison of dynamic and static spacers for the treatment of infections following total knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Revision surgery is the most common treatment for patients who develop infection after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Two types of spacers are often used in revision surgery: dynamic spacers and static spacers. The comparative efficacy of these two types of spacers on knee prosthesis infections is not well established. Therefore, we carried out a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis with the aim of comparing the difference in efficacy between dynamic and static spacers.

Methods

We conducted the literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. The articles searched were clinical study comparing the difference in efficacy between dynamic spacers and static spacers for the treatment of prosthetic infections occurring after total knee arthroplasty.

Results

We conducted a literature search and screening based on the principles of PICOS. Ultimately, 14 relevant clinical studies were included in our current study. We use infection control rate as the primary evaluation indicator. The KSS knee scores (KSSs), KSS functional scores, bone loss and range of motion (ROM) are secondary indicators of evaluation. Thirteen of these included studies reported the infection control rates, with no significant difference between dynamic and static shims (RR: 1.03; 95% Cl 0.98, 1.09; P = 0.179 > 0.05). The KSSs were reported in 10 articles (RR: 5.98; 95% CI 0.52, 11.43; P = 0.032 < 0.05). Six articles reported the KSS functional scores (RR: 13.90; 95% CI 4.95, 22.85; P = 0.02 < 0.05). Twelve articles reported the ROM (RR: 17.23. 95% CI 10.18, 24.27; P < 0.0001). Six articles reported the bone loss (RR: 2.04; 95% CI 1.11, 3.77; P = 0.022 < 0.05).

Conclusion

Current evidence demonstrates that dynamic spacers are comparable to static spacers in controlling prosthetic joint infection. In terms of improving the functional prognosis of the knee joint, dynamic spacers are more effective than static spacers.