Acetabular spacers in 2-stage hip revision: is it worth it? A single-centre retrospective study

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Two-stage arthroplasty for septic arthritis of the hip and knee: A systematic review on infection control and clinical functional outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Septic arthritis of the native hip and knee joint poses particular challenges to orthopedic surgeons. Patients often suffer from several comorbidities, and it could be challenging to find a balance between infection control and adequate function. Two-stage arthroplasty has been addressed as a reliable solution, however the literature on the topic is composed of case series with small sample size. This systematic review aimed to analyze data on infection control and clinical functional outcomes of patients who underwent two-stage arthroplasty for septic arthritis of the hip and knee.

METHODS

An electronic search of studies published from January 1st, 2000, to June 1st, 2021, was conducted using eight different databases. Following the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Revies and Meta-analysis two authors reviewed the available literature and reference lists to identify papers eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies were included, involving 435 procedures. The mean age was 57.3 ± 6.2 (45.8-71.8) years. The mean follow-up was 53.7 ± 18.6 (12-86.7) months. The mean infection eradication was 93.3 ± 6.4%. Mean Harris Hip Score improved from 32.1 ± 10.6 (11.5-42.9) to 87.5 ± 5.7 (80.6-97.8). Mean Knee Society Score improved from 42.9 ± 7.6 (35.9-58.0) to 86.1 ± 5.4 (80.1-96.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Two-stage arthroplasty for hip and knee septic arthritis provided high infection control rate and excellent function. Further high-quality studies should be oriented on providing a validated algorithm for diagnosis and treatment of this condition.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Clinical outcomes and survivorship of two-stage total hip or knee arthroplasty in septic arthritis: a retrospective analysis with a minimum five-year follow-up

Purpose

Septic arthritis of the native joint is challenging for orthopedic surgeons because it may lead to wide bone defects and severe impairment of joint function. This study aimed to analyze clinical functional outcomes, the rate of infection eradication, and survival of implants of patients who underwent two-stage arthroplasty for septic arthritis of the hip and knee.

Methods

A retrospective single-centre analysis was conducted of patients treated for septic arthritis of the hip and knee joints through a two-stage surgery between 2012 and 2015. Clinical and radiological records were gathered from the prospectively collected Institutional Arthroplasty Registry. Patients’ pre-operative Harris hip scores and Knee Society scores were compared with those obtained at the latest follow-up. Kaplan–Meier curves were generated to assess survival of implants.

Results

Forty-seven patients were included. The mean follow-up was 85.2 ± 15.4 months. The Harris hip score improved from 39.4 ± 9.9 to 84.5 ± 10.8 points (p < 0.001). The Knee Society score improved from 40.7 ± 8.4 to 86.0 ± 7.8 points (p < 0.001). Knee Society score-function increased from 25.7 ± 14.2 to 85.4 ± 23.4 points (p < 0.001). The infection eradication rates were 92.0% and 90.9% in patients who underwent hip and knee operation, respectively (p = 0.891). Overall survivorship of implants after the second stage was 93.6%.

Conclusions

Two-stage arthroplasty provides good to excellent clinical outcomes in cases of active septic arthritis of the hip and the knee, high rates of infection control, and implant survival.

Characterizing Femoral and Acetabular Bone Loss in Two-Stage Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Infection

BACKGROUND

The process of infection and multiple procedure-related factors in 2-stage exchange arthroplasty may lead to severe bone loss that can complicate subsequent reimplantation. The primary purpose of this study is to quantitatively characterize the extent of bone loss on the femoral and acetabular side prior to reimplantation during 2-stage revision hip arthroplasty for infection.

METHODS

This retrospective case series includes 47 patients with planned 2-stage exchange arthroplasty for treatment of infected total hip replacement. Demographic, clinical, and surgical information, and complications during the 2-stage process were collected on all patients. The radiographs of all patients were reviewed prior to first-stage explantation and post-reimplantation or latest follow-up to characterize bone loss using the Paprosky classification systems.

RESULTS

Of the 47 patients with planned 2-stage exchange, 10 patients (21%) were not reimplanted. Following explant and spacer placement, 32 patients (68%) experienced progressive femoral bone loss, and 20 (43%) experienced progressive acetabular bone loss. Patients who experienced progression of both femoral and acetabular bone (14, 30%) had a longer time between resection and reimplantation (164 ± 128 vs 88 ± 26 days, P = .03). A reimplantation time of greater than 90 days was associated with an increased risk of combined bone loss progression (15% vs 53%, P = .01). For patients who underwent reimplantation (79%), increased bone loss led to high rates of diaphyseal femoral fixation (97%) and revision acetabular components (38%).

CONCLUSION

Increased time to reimplantation in 2-stage exchange arthroplasty for prosthetic hip infections is associated with a high rate of acetabular and femoral bone loss, and increased complexity of reimplantation.

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.

Conservative two-stage revision with primary components of infected total hip arthroplasty: An analysis of survival, clinical and radiographic outcomes

Few studies provide an analysis of conservative two-stage revision of hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and its impact on final outcome. A conservative revision is defined when soft tissues and bone quality enable the use of primary prosthetic components. Data of patients treated for chronic hip PJI who underwent two-stage revision between 2009 and 2016 and had a minimum of 2 years of follow-up were collected. Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Harris Hip Score (HHS) and radiological and microbiological data were retrieved and analysed. Clinical and functional outcome, survival, mortality, eradication, reinfection and re-revision rates within subgroups of patients with primary components and revision components are reported herein. A total of 148 patients underwent two-stage hip exchange with a mean follow-up of 55.6 ± 23.1 months and a mean age at surgery of 64.3 ± 12.7 years. Forty-four percent of patients underwent conservative revision. The mean HHS significantly improved from 40.6 ± 9.4 points to the final value of 87.8 ± 10.5 points (p = .002), and the mean OHS went from 20.3 ± 3.8 points to 40.3 ± 5. points (p< .001). Patients who were treated with primary components or isolated revision stems in the second stage had a significant reduction in surgical times (p< .001). The mortality rate for all causes of death was 6.8%, the eradication rate was 89.9%, the reinfection rate was 4.7% and the reoperation rate was 7.4% without differences between conservative and non-conservative revisions. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty for total hip arthroplasty (THA) PJI is a good strategy that provides satisfactory results, high eradication rates and no further need for revision. The conservative two-stage revision in patients with adequate bone stock represents a feasible option with good results and survival rates.

Cup-on-cup technique: a reliable management solution for severe acetabular bone loss in revision total hip replacement

BACKGROUND

The management of acetabular bone loss is a challenging problem in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). The goals of treatment are a stable acetabular fixation, implant stability, and restoration of hip centre of rotation.This study aims to report clinical, radiological outcomes and complications at short-term to mid-term follow-up of the cup-on-cup technique in the management of severe acetabular bone loss in rTHA.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of patient receiving rTHA performed with double porous tantalum cup technique in a single Joint Replacement Unit from 2014 to 2017. Objective and subjective clinical scores (Harris Hip Score, Oxford Hip Score, and visual analogue scale), radiological parameters (centre of rotation, leg-length discrepancy, heterotopic ossification, osseointegration, loosening and radiolucencies) and complications were recorded. We analysed the implant survival rate and periprosthetic joint infection rate.

RESULTS

We included 9 patients (9 hips) with a mean follow-up of 35.3 ± 10.8 months. Functional scores showed a statistically significant improvement at the final follow-up (p < 0.01). All patients rated their surgery as satisfactory. The cup-on-cup construct demonstrated radiological osseointegration with the centre of rotation restoration and leg length discrepancy improvement. In 1 patient, periprosthetic joint infection was diagnosed and treated with suppressive antibiotic therapy. No patients underwent acetabular components revision surgery for any reason.

CONCLUSIONS

Cup-on-cup technique is a valid and safe solution for reconstruction of selected Paprosky type IIIA and IIIB bone defects with satisfactory clinical and radiographic results at short-term and mid-term follow-up.

Clinical study of outcomes after revision surgery using porous titanium custom-made implants for severe acetabular septic bone defects

PURPOSE

Acetabular bone loss is a challenging problem in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Severe bone loss is not uncommon especially in periprosthetic joint infection. Surgical options, including revision shells, rings, and cages-with or without bone allograft-are affected by high complication rates and unsatisfactory clinical results. We report our mid-term results of non-flanged, custom-made acetabular components in staged rTHA.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing two-stage revision with acetabular custom-made implants between 2014 and 2016 at a single institution. Harris Hip Scores, Oxford Hip Scores, and Visual Analogue Scales for pain were obtained, and radiographical follow-up was performed. Complications were reported and analysed.

RESULTS

We included 19 patients (19 hips) with an average follow-up of 42.3 ± 11.8 months. At the time of re-implantation, significant acetabular bone loss according to Paprosky classification (IIC, IIIA-B, and pelvic discontinuity) was detected in our patients. Clinical outcomes showed statistically significant improvement from pre-operative visit to last follow-up (p < 0.01). All custom-made implants had radiological osseointegration, and we did not find any implant complications, such as loosening or malposition. No mismatch between pre-operative planning and intra-operative findings was observed. To date, we report one septic failure managed with second staged revision, and one re-operation for recurrent THA dislocation.

CONCLUSIONS

Custom-made acetabular implants showed excellent clinical and radiographic mid-term outcomes with a low rate of related complications, providing implant stability on residual host bone, restoring hip biomechanics, and allowing biological osseointegration. Further long-term studies are needed to confirm preliminary results.

Primary cementless stems in septic hip revision: Indications and results

PURPOSE

The aim of our work is to evaluate results obtained from a cohort of patients affected by periprosthetic joint infection and treated with a primary cementless stem in a two-stage technique framework.

METHODS

Eighty-four patients were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 37.4 months. The main demographic, surgical, clinical, and radiographic data were recorded. A femoral window for stem removal was performed in 33 patients.

RESULTS

Statistically significant improvement was noted for both the Harris Hip score and the Oxford Hip score. Postsurgical complications included thigh pain in three patients, subsidence (>2 mm) in one patient, implant dislocation in two patients, cup revision in one patient, implant revision for septic failure in two patients, and stem revision for varus position in one patient. The stem survivorship rate was 96.3%. There were no significant differences between the groups in which a cortical window was created or not.

CONCLUSION

Femoral stem revision with primary cementless stems is a viable option in selected patients undergoing two-stage hip revision surgery. Correct indication is a cornerstone of good outcome. The use of a cortical window does not affect the final outcome or implant survivorship rate.

Point/Counterpoint: Nonarticulating vs Articulating Spacers for Resection Arthroplasty of the Knee or Hip

Two-stage exchange arthroplasty remains the gold standard for chronic total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty infections in North America. Cement spacers impregnated with high-dose antibiotics have been successfully used in the interim period of the 2-stage exchange process. A number of spacers have been described; however, this article will focus on articulating spacers. In the presence of an intact extensor mechanism (for TKA), reasonable soft tissue envelope, and adequate bone, articulating antibiotic spacers provide several advantages. These include an infection eradication rate of approximately 90%, higher range of motion after reimplantation, and lower complication rates when compared with nonarticulating spacers. In the appropriate patient, articulating antibiotic spacers are an effective and a safe treatment for infected TKAs and total hip arthroplasties.

Acetabular custom-made implants for severe acetabular bone defect in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature

PURPOSE

The management of acetabular bone loss is a challenging problem in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). The aim of this systematic review is to summarize and critically analyze indications, complications, clinical and radiological outcomes of custom-made acetabular components in rTHA.

METHODS

A systematic review of English literature was performed on Medline. Retrospective or prospective studies with minimum 2 years of follow-up (FU) were included. The PRISMA 2009 flowchart and checklist were considered to edit the review. Rates of intra- or post-operative complications, aseptic loosening (AL), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), reoperations and re-revisions rates were extrapolated.

RESULTS

18 articles with a level of evidence of IV were included. Six hundred and thirty-four acetabular custom components (627 patients) with a mean FU of 58.6 ± 29.8 months were analyzed. The studies showed good clinical and functional outcomes. Custom-made acetabular components allowed a stable fixation with 94.0 ± 5.0% survival rate. The estimated rate of re-operations and re-revisions were 19.3 ± 17.3% and 5.2 ± 4.7%, respectively. The incidence of PJI was 4.0 ± 3.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

The acetabular custom-made implants represent a reliable solution for pelvic discontinuity and particular cases of bone loss classified as Paprosky Type IIIA-B or type III-IV according to American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons system where the feature of the defect cannot be handled with standard implants. This strategy allows to fit the implant to the residual host bone, bypassing the bony deficiency and restoring hip biomechanics. Satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes at mid-term follow-up are reported in literature.

Partial 2-Stage Exchange for Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Updated Report

BACKGROUND

Management of an infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) is challenging. The eradication of infection as well as complications of component removal must all be considered. This study is an update on previous reports of treating periprosthetic infection of the hip with a partial 2-stage exchange with retention of the femoral component.

METHODS

A retrospective review of our practice's arthroplasty registry from 2000 to 2018 revealed 41 hips with 2-year minimum follow-up that were treated with a 2-stage partial exchange for an infected THA. All first-stage procedures allowed an articulating construct with 1 of 3 variations: cemented constrained liner (13 hips), StageOne Hip Cement Spacer Mold (14 hips), or an antibiotic polymethylmethacrylate head molded from a bulb syringe (14 hips). Of 41 cases, 34 were culture positive, with 3 cases having methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 5.5 years (range, 1.5-18.5 years). The second-stage reimplantation was accomplished in 39 of the 41 hips (95%) at a mean interval of 9.2 weeks (range, 5-9 weeks). Two patients underwent repeat radical debridement with removal of all components before reimplantation for persistent clinical evidence of infection. Thirty-three of the 41 hips (81%) were infection free at most recent follow-up. The mean postoperative Harris hip score at most recent evaluation was 63.6 (range, 24-100).

CONCLUSION

Eradication of periprosthetic joint infections, while minimizing patient morbidity, continues to be a challenge. Partial 2-stage exchange may be considered in cases where removal of a well-fixed femoral component may result in significant bony destruction.

The Use of Tantalum Metaphyseal Cones for the Management of Severe Bone Defects in Septic Knee Revision

BACKGROUND

Femoral and tibial massive bone defects are common findings in septic total knee revision and pose considerable challenges for the orthopedic surgeon. The aim of this study was to report the midterm clinical and radiographic outcomes with the use of tantalum cones for the management of massive bone defects after 2-stage knee revision.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 60 patients (mean age, 67.9 ± 8.8 years) treated with 94 tantalum cones associated with constrained or semiconstrained knee for massive bone loss (mean follow-up, 43.5 ± 17.4 months). In all cases, the indication was a staged revision for periprosthetic knee infection. Functional scores, radiographic outcomes, and implant survivorship were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean Knee Society Score and Oxford Knee Score improved from 44.1 ± 7.4 and 19.2 ± 4.1 to 85.4 ± 5.6 and 38.4 ± 3.9 (P < .01), respectively. The mean flexion increased from 60.6° ± 15.5° to 96.8° ± 10.9° at the last evaluation (P < .01). The mean improvement in flexion contracture was 6.2 ± 8.0 (P < .01). Two failures (3.3%) due to periprosthetic knee infection recurrence were observed, but no cone-related mechanical failures were reported. The cone-related survival rate was 97.8%.

CONCLUSION

Excellent clinical and radiographic midterm outcomes were achieved with a low complication rate. Tantalum cones may be considered a safe and effective option in the management of massive bone defects also in septic knee revision surgery.

Preliminary results of a novel spacer technique in the management of septic revision hip arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical failure due to dislocation, fracture and acetabular wear is a major complication associated with the use of spacers in the management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We have developed a novel custom-made spacer in the setting of two-stage septic revision hip arthroplasty and present the preliminary results of our technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between May 2015 and November 2017, 30 patients underwent hip revision using the ENDO spacer technique in the setting of a two-stage septic exchange arthroplasty. The technique involves the dual mobility liner and the downsized stainless cemented straight stem in combination with antibiotic-loaded PMMA bone cement. The primary outcome measure was the overall spacer complication rate, particularly spacer dislocation. Furthermore, functional outcome using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) before spacer implantation and prior re-implantation was evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 69.8 years (range from 45 to 85; SD = 9.9 years). No microorganisms were preoperatively found in 23 (76.7%) cases. Successful re-implantation was performed in all patients after a mean spacer duration time of 53.6 days (range 14-288 days; SD = 48.2). Spacer-related complications occurred in only two patients (6.7%). The HHS significantly improved from 34.0 (range 3-62; SD = 15.1) to 48.1 (range 11-73; SD = 15.7) (p = 0.0008).

CONCLUSIONS

The ENDO spacer surgical technique is a feasible option in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), with a low dislocation rate. Furthermore, it allows early mobilization with the possibility of full-weight bearing.

Qualitative Alpha-defensin Versus The Main Available Tests For The Diagnosis Of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Best Predictor Test?

Introduction: Biomarkers such as α-defensin demonstrated to be a potentially useful option in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis. Recently, a new point-of-care test for α-defensin level detection in synovial fluid has been commercialized in Europe. The aim of this study is to compare the α-defensin test (SynovasureTM) diagnostic ability with the main available clinical tests for periprosthetic joint infection diagnosis in a practical clinical setting of a Bone Infection Unit. Methods: Between 2015 and 2017, 146 patients with suspected chronic PJI were screened with SynovasureTM. Seventy-three of these met the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria and were included in the analysis. According to MSIS criteria, 40 patients (54.7%) were classified as infected and 33 (45.3%) as not infected. The results obtained with SynovasureTM were recorded and compared with standard diagnostic methods for PJI diagnosis. Results: SynovasureTM showed a sensitivity of 85.0 % (95% CI 70.2 to 94.3) and a specificity of 96.9 % (95% CI 83.8 to 99.9) for PJI detection. The positive likelihood ratio of SynovasureTM was 27.2 (95% CI 3.9 to 188.1) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.2 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.3). The diagnostic odds ratio was 181.3 (95% CI 20.7 to 1590.4). SynovasureTM demonstrated a statistical significant difference when compared to Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) and C-reactive Protein (CRP) specificity (at least one positive test) and preoperative culture sensitivity (1 positive culture). Conclusion: Our findings show that SynovasureTM sensitivity is lower than quantitative α-D test, but when compared to the main available tests shows a good specificity and the highest DOR. On the SF it is the easier test to do, due to the fact that it needs a minimal amount of SF and it is not limited by blood contamination or antibiotic use. Whereas there is no single standalone test, SynovasureTM should be considered a reliable additional test for periprosthetic joint infection diagnosis in everyday clinical practice.

Femoral revision with primary cementless stems: a systematic review of the literature

The use of primary cementless stems in femoral revision has gained popularity, but no clear consensus about the correct indication is still present. The aim of our systematic review is to: (1) summarize the available literature focused on the use of cementless primary stem in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); (2) evaluate whether the use of cementless primary stems could represent a feasible option in hip revision; (3) define the proper indication of this surgical approach. A systematic literature review was performed about the use of cementless primary stems in revision THA. The PRISMA 2009 checklist was considered to edit our review. A total of nine articles were included. The current evidence is primarily Level IV. A total of 439 patients (454 hips) underwent THA revision with primary cementless stem. Partial cementless porous coated stems were used in 246 hips (54.2%). The majority of patients were affected by type I or II Paprosky femoral defects. The mean stem-related survival rate is 95.6% ± 3.8 with a mean follow-up of 4.7 years ± 1.3. Poor standardization of methodological analysis was observed. Current literature shows lacking evidence about primary cementless stems in revision THA. Despite these limitations, we can affirm that primary cementless stems in femoral revision surgery represent a viable option in selected patients. The proper indication is a patient with femoral Paprosky defect types I or II, with low number of previous surgeries and a previous cementless stem.