| Literature DB >> 19834589 |
Jens Kelm1, Eduard Schmitt, Konstantinos Anagnostakos.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of the vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.C.) system in the treatment of early hip joint infections. 28 patients (11 m/17 f; mean age 71 y. [43-84]) with early hip joint infections have been treated by means of the V.A.C.-therapy. At least one surgical revision [1-7] has been unsuccessfully performed for infection treatment prior to V.A.C.-application. Pathogen organisms could have been isolated in 22/28 wounds. During revision, cup inlay and prosthesis head have been exchanged and 1-3 polyvinylalcohol sponges inserted into the wound cavity/ periprosthetically at an initial continuous pressure of 200 mm Hg. Postoperatively, a systemic antibiosis was given according to antibiogram. 48-72 h after surgery an alteration from haemorrhagic to serous fluid was observed in the V.A.C.-canister. Afterwards, the pressure was decreased to 150 mm Hg and remained at this level till sponge removal. After a mean period of 9 [3-16] days the inflammation parameters have been retrogressive and the sponges were removed. An infection eradication could be achieved in 26/28 cases. In the two remaining cases the infected prosthesis had to be explanted and a gentamicin-vancomycin-loaded spacer has been implanted, respectively. At a total mean follow-up of 36 [12-87] months no reinfection or infection persistence was observed. The V.A.C.-system can be a valuable contribution in the treatment of early joint infections when properly used. Indications should be early infections with well-maintained soft-tissues for retention of the negative atmospheric pressure.Entities:
Keywords: V.A.C.-therapy; early infection; hip joint; vacuum-assisted closure
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19834589 PMCID: PMC2755119 DOI: 10.7150/ijms.6.241
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Med Sci ISSN: 1449-1907 Impact factor: 3.738
Figure 1Draining sinus 3 weeks after total hip arthroplasty.
Patient's data, surgical procedures and causative organisms.
| Patient | Age / Gender | Primary surgery | Pathogen organism(s) | Time period between prim. surgery and revision [weeks] | Time period of V.A.C. implantation [days] | Revisions prior to V.A.C. implantation | Follow-up [months] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 81/ M | aseptic cup | S. marcescens | 3 | 11 | 2 | 68 |
| loosening | CN staphylococci | ||||||
| gram(-) rods | |||||||
| 2 | 51/ F | Girdlestone | E. faecalis | 10 | 13 | 4 | 45 |
| 3 | 46/ M | spacer | MRSA | 3 | 8 | 7 | 87 |
| implantation | |||||||
| 4 | 54/ F | spacer | MRSA | 4 | 11 | 2 | 82 |
| implantation | |||||||
| 5 | 49/ F | Girdlestone | E. faecalis | 7 | 8 | 3 | 67 |
| 6 | 71/ F | aseptic cup | gram (+) anaerobes | 5 | 11 | 1 | 44 |
| loosening | P. magnus | ||||||
| S. epidermidis | |||||||
| 7 | 84/ M | THA after spacer | S. simulans | 3 | 8 | 1 | 43 |
| implantation | |||||||
| 8 | 82/ F | aseptic cup | S. epidermidis | 1 | 13 | 1 | 42 |
| loosening | |||||||
| 9 | 69/ M | primary THA | S. epidermidis | 3 | 16 | 1 | 35 |
| 10 | 51/ F | aseptic cup | Enterobacteriae | 3 | 12/11/13 | 1 | 36 |
| loosening | S. epidermidis | ||||||
| C. albicans | |||||||
| MRSA | |||||||
| 11 | 83/ F | primary THA | E. coli | 4 | 12 | 2 | 32 |
| 12 | 52/ F | THA after spacer | S. epidermidis | 5 | 11 | 2 | 32 |
| implantation | |||||||
| 13 | 71/ F | THA after spacer | P. vulgaris | 2 | 11 | 1 | 32 |
| implantation | E. cloacae | ||||||
| 14 | 57/ M | primary THA | CN staphylococci | 3 | 12 | 1 | 42 |
| 15 | 73/ M | THA after spacer | no bacterium identified | 2 | 9 | 1 | 42 |
| implantation | |||||||
| 16 | 73/ F | primary THA | S. epidermidis | 5 | 10/3/7 | 1 | 42 |
| K. pneumoniae | |||||||
| 17 | 65/ M | primary THA | no bacterium identified | 4 | 9 | 1 | 42 |
| 18 | 49/ F | primary THA | S. aureus | 4 | 7 | 2 | 35 |
| C. albicans | |||||||
| 19 | 71/ M | primary THA | E. faecalis | 1 | 7/9 | 1 | 30 |
| 20 | 79/ F | primary THA | S. aureus | 7 | 7 | 1 | 30 |
| 21 | 72/ F | aseptic stem | S. epidermidis | 2 | 6 | 1 | 25 |
| loosening | |||||||
| 22 | 70/ F | primary THA | E. faecalis | 2 | 4/9 | 1 | 23 |
| K. pneumoniae | |||||||
| P. mirabilis | |||||||
| 23 | 72/ F | aseptic stem | E. faecalis | 2 | 8 | 1 | 20 |
| loosening | |||||||
| 24 | 72/ M | resection of heterotopic ossification after primary THA | no bacterium identified | 2 | 8 | 1 | 20 |
| 25 | 66/ F | tumour prosthesis | no bacterium identified | 4 | 7/5 | 1 | 17 |
| 26 | 43/ M | primary THA | S. aureus | 4 | 5 | 1 | 15 |
| 27 | 79/ F | spacer | no bacterium identified | 2 | 8 | 1 | 13 |
| implantation | |||||||
| 28 | 67/ M | spacer | no bacterium identified | 2 | 9 | 1 | 12 |
| implantation |
Figure 2Injection of methylene blue into the fistula for identification of all infected tissues.
Figure 3Cup inlay and prosthesis head should be removed on routine.
Figure 4Periprosthetical insertion of polyvinylalcohol sponges.
Figure 5Anatomical reconstruction and adaptation of the tissue layers for retention of the V.A.C. - therapy.
Figure 6The wound is closed, the tubes are transcutaneously lead out.
Figure 7Outcome 3 months after V.A.C. - therapy.