BACKGROUND: A two-stage revision is a well-accepted method for the treatment of a deep infection of a hip with a joint implant. In the present study, the results associated with the interim use of antibiotic-loaded cement beads were compared with those associated with the interim use of an antibiotic-loaded cement prosthesis. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-eight consecutive patients who were managed with a two-stage revision hip arthroplasty for the treatment of an infection were followed clinically and radiographically for an average of 4.9 years. Cement beads were implanted following resection arthroplasty in the first seventy hips, and a custom cement prosthesis was implanted in the subsequent fifty-eight hips. RESULTS: There was no evidence of recurrent infection in 122 patients (95.3%); the infection-free rates in both groups were similar. The use of a spacer prosthesis was associated with a higher hip score, a shorter hospital stay, and better walking capacity in the interim period; a decreased operative time, less blood loss, and a lower transfusion requirement at the time of reimplantation; and fewer postoperative dislocations. CONCLUSIONS: The present study supports the safety and efficacy of the routine use of an antibiotic-loaded cement prosthesis in the interim between the stages of a two-stage revision procedure for the treatment of an infection at the site of a hip arthroplasty.
BACKGROUND: A two-stage revision is a well-accepted method for the treatment of a deep infection of a hip with a joint implant. In the present study, the results associated with the interim use of antibiotic-loaded cement beads were compared with those associated with the interim use of an antibiotic-loaded cement prosthesis. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-eight consecutive patients who were managed with a two-stage revision hip arthroplasty for the treatment of an infection were followed clinically and radiographically for an average of 4.9 years. Cement beads were implanted following resection arthroplasty in the first seventy hips, and a custom cement prosthesis was implanted in the subsequent fifty-eight hips. RESULTS: There was no evidence of recurrent infection in 122 patients (95.3%); the infection-free rates in both groups were similar. The use of a spacer prosthesis was associated with a higher hip score, a shorter hospital stay, and better walking capacity in the interim period; a decreased operative time, less blood loss, and a lower transfusion requirement at the time of reimplantation; and fewer postoperative dislocations. CONCLUSIONS: The present study supports the safety and efficacy of the routine use of an antibiotic-loaded cement prosthesis in the interim between the stages of a two-stage revision procedure for the treatment of an infection at the site of a hip arthroplasty.
Authors: Dariusz Marczak; Marek Synder; Marcin Sibiński; Michał Polguj; Julian Dudka; Jacek Kowalczewski Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 3.075