Is There a Role for Spacer Exchange in Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection?

Antimicrobial Regimens in Cement Spacers for Periprosthetic Joint Infections: A Critical Review

Antibiotic-loaded cement spacers (ALCSs) are essential for treating periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) by providing mechanical support and local antibiotic delivery. The purpose of this review is to comprehensively examine the various types of spacers utilised in the management of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs), including both static and articulating variants and to analyse the fundamental principles underlying spacer use, their clinical benefits, the selection and administration of antimicrobial agents, appropriate dosages, and potential adverse effects. Articulating spacers, which allow joint mobility, often yield better outcomes than static ones. Spacer pharmacokinetics are vital for maintaining therapeutic antibiotic levels, influenced by cement porosity, mixing techniques, and the contact area. Antibiotic choice depends on heat stability, solubility, and impact on cement's mechanical properties. Mechanical properties are crucial, as spacers must withstand physical stresses, with antibiotics potentially affecting these properties. Complications, such as tissue damage and systemic toxicity, are discussed, along with mitigation strategies. Future advancements include surface modifications and novel carriers to enhance biofilm management and infection control.

The Practice Patterns of American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons for the Management of Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has considerable variation. In order to better capture current preferences for the management of PJI, this study sought to poll the current members of American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) first to characterize the distribution of practice patterns.

METHODS

There were 32 questions in an online survey distributed to members of AAHKS. The questions were multiple choice regarding the management of PJI for TKA. There were 844 out of 2,752 members who completed the survey (response rate of 31%).

RESULTS

Most of the members were in private practice (50%) compared to 28% being in an academic setting. On average, members were performing between 6 to 20 PJI cases per year. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty was performed in over 75% of the cases with either a cruciate retaining (CR) or posterior stabilized (PS) primary femoral component used in over 50% of the cases and 62% using an all-polyethylene tibial implant. Most of the members were using vancomycin and tobramycin. Typically, 2 to 3 grams of antibiotics were added per bag of cement regardless of the cement type. When indicated, amphotericin was the most often-used antifungal. Post-operative management had major variability with range of motion, brace use, and weight-bearing restrictions.

CONCLUSION

There was variability in the responses from the members of AAHKS, but there was a preference toward performing a two-stage exchange arthroplasty with an articulating spacer using a metal femoral component and an all-polyethylene liner.

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.

Repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty for recurrent periprosthetic hip or knee infection: what are the chances for success?

INTRODUCTION

Two-stage revision is a frequently chosen approach to treat chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, management of recurrent infection after a two-stage exchange remains debated and the outcome of a repeat two-stage procedure is unclear. This study investigates the success rates of repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty and analyzes possible risk factors for failure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively identified 55 patients (23 hips, 32 knees) who were treated with repeat resection arthroplasty and planned delayed reimplantation for recurrent periprosthetic joint infection between 2010 and 2019 after a prior two-stage revision at the same institution. The minimum follow-up was 12 months with a median follow-up time of 34 months (IQR 22-51). The infection-free survival, associated revision surgeries, and potential risk factors for further revision were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and comparative non-parametric testing.

RESULTS

78% (43/55) underwent reimplantation after a repeat implant removal. Of those who completed the second-stage surgery, 37% (16/43) underwent additional revision for infection and 14% (6/55) underwent amputation. The reinfection-free implant survivorship amounted to 77% (95% CI 64-89%) after 1 year and 38% (95% CI 18-57%) after 5 years. Patients with a higher comorbidity score were less likely to undergo second-stage reimplantation (median 5 vs. 3, p = 0.034). Furthermore, obese patients (p = 0.026, Fisher's exact test) and diabetics (p < 0.001, log-rank test) had a higher risk for further infection. Most commonly cultures yielded polymicrobial growth at the repeat two-stage exchange (27%, 15/55) and at re-reinfection (32%, 9/28). Pathogen persistence was observed in 21% (6/28) of re-reinfected patients.

CONCLUSION

The success rates after repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty are low. Patients must be counseled accordingly and different modes of treatment should be considered.

Modern Description of Antibiotic Spacer Options for PJI in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Clinical Outcomes and Infection Eradication Rates

BACKGROUND

As the burden of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) increases there is growing interest in understanding the efficacy and morbidity reduction of two-stage revision and various antibiotic spacer options. This study aimed to expand the description and evaluation of spacers from solely their articulation status to include their ability to support full (functional) or partial weight-bearing (non-functional).

METHODS

Between 2002 and 2021, 391 patients who had Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria for PJI with one- or two-stage revision were included. Demographics, functional outcomes, and subsequent revision data was collected. The study population had a mean follow-up of 2.9 years (range, 0.05 to 13.0) with an average age of 67 years (range, 34.7 to 93.4). Spacer failure was defined by surgical intervention following definitive surgery, and infection eradication was defined by the Delphi criteria. Spacers were classified as nonfunctional static, nonfunctional dynamic, functional static, or functional dynamic. Two tailed t-tests were performed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in infection eradication or mechanical outcomes across spacer types; notably, 97.3% of functional dynamic spacers achieved infection eradication. Functional spacers had a longer time to the second stage procedure and a greater number of patients who had not been reimplanted. There was no difference in reoperation rates in nonfunctional versus functional spacers.

CONCLUSION

Within this cohort, infection eradication and spacer exchange rates were non-inferior among spacers. Functional spacers may allow for earlier return to daily living given the weightbearing capability when compared to non-functional, without sacrificing clinical outcome.

Spacer exchange in persistent periprosthetic joint infection: microbiological evaluation and survivorship analysis

PURPOSE

The purposes of this study were to determine demographics and characteristics of patients who underwent spacer exchange for persistent infection in the setting of two-stage arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection, to describe the microbiology of pathogens involved, to analyze survivorship free from infection in these patients.

METHODS

The institutional prospectively collected database was reviewed to enroll patients with minimum 2 years follow-up. Patients who underwent two-stage procedure for septic arthritis were excluded, as were patients who had spacer fracture or dislocation.

RESULTS

A total of 34 patients (41 procedures) were included. Mean age was 65.0 ± 12.8 years. Mean follow-up was 53.4 ± 24.8 months. Mean number of previous procedures was 3.6 ± 1.2. A total of 27 (79.4%) patients underwent final reimplantation. The most frequently isolated pathogen in spacer exchange was Staphylococcus epidermidis (10 cases, 28.6%). Polymicrobial cultures were obtained from 9 (25.71%) patients, 10 (28.6%) presented culture-negative infections. A total of 11 (32.4%) resistant pathogens were isolated, and 16 (47.0%) difficult to treat pathogens were detected. Eradication rate was 78.8%. Overall survivorship of implants after final reimplantation was 72.8% at 51.8 months.

CONCLUSION

Surgeons should be aware that subjects necessitating spacer exchange often present multiple comorbidities, previous staged revision failures, soft-tissue impairment and difficult to treat infection. In these patients, spacer exchange provides good clinical results and infection eradication, preventing arthrodesis or amputation.

Clinical impact of microbiological results in two-stage revision arthroplasty with spacer exchange

INTRODUCTION

Patients who require a spacer exchange as part of a two-stage procedure for the treatment of periprosthetic hip and knee joint infections (PJI) have high failure rates. Little is known about the clinical impact of microbiological results and changes in the microbiological spectrum and resistance pattern in these patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between 01/2011 and 12/2019, 312 patients underwent a total of 327 two-stage revision arthroplasties at our institution. A spacer exchange was required in 52/312 (16.7%) patients (27 knee/25 hip). Microbiological results, antibiotic resistance patterns, patient's host factors as well as re-revision and re-infection rates at a median follow-up of 47.8 months (range 12.2-116.7 months) were analyzed. A propensity score (PS)-matched analysis of patients who underwent spacer exchange and patients treated with standard two-stage procedure was performed.

RESULTS

We found a high number of microbiological spectrum changes in patients with multiple culture positive procedures between explantations and spacer exchanges (10/12 [83.3%]), spacer exchanges and reimplantations (3/4 [75%]) as well as between reimplantations and subsequent re-revision surgeries (5/6 [83.3%]). In 9/52 (17.3%) patients, same microorganisms were detected repeatedly in two different procedures. We observed changes in the antibiotic resistance patterns in 6/9 (66.7%) of these patients. High re-infection rates were found in patients with culture positive reimplantations (10/12 [83.3%]), and low re-infection rates were found in patients with culture negative reimplantations (2/40 [5%]; p < 0.001). Between patients with and without spacer exchange, no differences were found in the re-revision rates (13/52 [25%] with vs. 13/52 [25%] without; p = 1.00) as well as re-infection rates (12/52 [23.1%] with vs. 8/52 [15.4%] without; p = 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in microbiological spectrum and antibiotic resistance patterns between stages are common in patients who require a spacer exchange. If eradication of the microorganism at reimplantation can be accomplished, comparable re-revision rates to standard two-stage procedures can be achieved.

Influence of the Type of Bone Cement Used in Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Chronic Periarticular Joint Infection on the Spacer Replacement and Reinfection Rate

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) spacers are used in the first stage when treating periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). This study aimed to investigate whether a spacer made from commercial ALBC or plain bone cement with additional antibiotics could affect the spacer exchange rate before reimplantation.

METHODS

Patients undergoing two-stage exchange arthroplasty due to chronic PJI from January 2014 to August 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The exclusion criteria included arthroplasty in the setting of septic arthritis, megaprosthesis, atypical pathogen infection, spacer placement unrelated to PJI, and spacer exchange due to mechanical complications. The patient demographics, brand of cement, and microbiology were recorded manually. The primary outcome was the incidence of spacer exchange due to persistent infection and the secondary outcome was the incidence of reinfection after reimplantation. A multivariate logistic regression analysis and Chi-square test were conducted to identify the effect of cement type on the spacer exchange.

RESULTS

A total of 334 patients underwent two-stage exchange arthroplasty for PJI. The spacer exchange rates in the commercial and non-commercial ALBC groups were 6.4% and 25.1%, respectively (p = 0.004). After controlling for confounding factors, there were significant differences between the commercial group and non-commercial groups in the spacer exchange rate (adjusted OR = 0.25; 95% CI = 0.72-0.87, p = 0.029). The use of commercial ALBC was not associated with a lower reinfection rate after reimplantation (p = 0.160).

CONCLUSIONS

In a two-stage exchange arthroplasty scenario, the spacer comprised of commercial ALBC resulted in a lower spacer exchange rate than the plain bone cement, both of which had additional antibiotics. However, the use of commercial ALBC was not associated with a lower incidence of reinfection following reimplantation.

Current Concepts on the Application, Pharmacokinetics and Complications of Antibiotic-Loaded Cement Spacers in the Treatment of Prosthetic Joint Infections

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication of total joint replacement surgery. It affects about 2% of primary total joint replacements. Treatment aims at infection eradication and restoration of patient's mobility. Two-stage revision arthroplasty with an interim application of an antibiotic-loaded cement spacer (ALCS) is the widely accepted treatment for PJI. Spacers are powerful local carriers of antibiotics at the site of infection, effective against biofilm-protected microbes. On the other hand, spacers permit some mobility of the patient and facilitate final prosthesis implantation. ALCS's are either commercially available or prepared intraoperatively on prefabricated or improvised molds. Antibiotic elution from the spacer depends on the amount of the antibiotic used for cement impregnation, at the expense of mechanical stiffness of the spacer. The antibiotic should not exceed 4g per 40g of bone cement to preserve the mechanical properties of the cement. Spacers are frequently accompanied by local or systemic complications. The spacer may break, dislocate and compress vessels or nerves of the limb. Systemic complications are the result of excess elution of antibiotic and include nephrotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, ototoxicity, allergic reactions or neutropenia. Elderly patients with comorbidities are at risk to present such complications. Microbial resistance is a potential risk of long-lasting spacer retention. Persisting infection may require multiple spacer replacements.

Risk of reinfection after two- or multiple-stage knee revision surgery using superficial vancomycin coating and conventional spacers

This study investigates the effect of superficial vancomycin coating (SVC) in two- or more-stage exchange procedures of prosthetic knee joint infections. We hypothesized that spacer treatment with SVC result in lower reinfection rates than conventional spacers after prosthetic reimplantation. Our secondary aim was to determine the demographic and treatment factors associated with reinfection rates. This retrospective cohort study compromised 96 cases with prosthetic knee infections. Twenty-four cases were treated with a temporary SVC spacer and 72 cases with conventional spacers. Prosthetic reinfection occurred after a median observation period of 1.7 ± 4.0 years in 24 cases (25%). The prevalence of having a reinfection was not significantly different between the two treatment groups (13% [3 cases] in the SVC group vs. 29% [21 cases] in the conventional spacer group [p = .104]). In seven cases (7.3%), two in the SVC group (8.3%) and five (6.9%) in the conventional spacer group (p ≥ .999), histological, respectively microbiological evaluations from the intraoperative specimens revealed persistent infection at the second stage. Nevertheless, in all seven cases no significant higher risk of periprosthetic reinfection was observed during follow-up (p = .750). Our secondary investigation of cofactors revealed that spacers additionally stabilized by nails were significantly associated with a 3.9-fold higher hazard ratio of sustaining a reinfection of revision prosthesis (p = .005).