Nicola Capuano1, Nicola Logoluso2, Enrico Gallazzi2, Lorenzo Drago3, Carlo Luca Romanò4. 1. Department for Orthopaedics, San Luca Hospital, Vallo della Lucania, Italy. 2. Department of Reconstructive Surgery of Osteo-articular Infections, I.R.C.C.S. Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy. 3. Laboratory of Clinical Chemistry and Microbiology, I.R.C.C.S. Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Reconstructive Surgery of Osteo-articular Infections, I.R.C.C.S. Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy. carlo.romano@grupposandonato.it.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Aim of this study was to verify the hypothesis that a one-stage exchange procedure, performed with an antibiotic-loaded, fast-resorbable hydrogel coating, provides similar infection recurrence rate than a two-stage procedure without the coating, in patients affected by peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI). METHODS: In this two-center case-control, study, 22 patients, treated with a one-stage procedure, using implants coated with an antibiotic-loaded hydrogel [defensive antibacterial coating (DAC)], were compared with 22 retrospective matched controls, treated with a two-stage revision procedure, without the coating. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 29.3 ± 5.0 months, two patients (9.1%) in the DAC group showed an infection recurrence, compared to three patients (13.6%) in the two-stage group. Clinical scores were similar between groups, while average hospital stay and antibiotic treatment duration were significantly reduced after one-stage, compared to two-stage (18.9 ± 2.9 versus 35.8 ± 3.4 and 23.5 ± 3.3 versus 53.7 ± 5.6 days, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although in a relatively limited series of patients, our data shows similar infection recurrence rate after one-stage exchange with DAC-coated implants, compared to two-stage revision without coating, with reduced overall hospitalization time and antibiotic treatment duration. These findings warrant further studies in the possible applications of antibacterial coating technologies to treat implant-related infections. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
PURPOSE: Aim of this study was to verify the hypothesis that a one-stage exchange procedure, performed with an antibiotic-loaded, fast-resorbable hydrogel coating, provides similar infection recurrence rate than a two-stage procedure without the coating, in patients affected by peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI). METHODS: In this two-center case-control, study, 22 patients, treated with a one-stage procedure, using implants coated with an antibiotic-loaded hydrogel [defensive antibacterial coating (DAC)], were compared with 22 retrospective matched controls, treated with a two-stage revision procedure, without the coating. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 29.3 ± 5.0 months, two patients (9.1%) in the DAC group showed an infection recurrence, compared to three patients (13.6%) in the two-stage group. Clinical scores were similar between groups, while average hospital stay and antibiotic treatment duration were significantly reduced after one-stage, compared to two-stage (18.9 ± 2.9 versus 35.8 ± 3.4 and 23.5 ± 3.3 versus 53.7 ± 5.6 days, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although in a relatively limited series of patients, our data shows similar infection recurrence rate after one-stage exchange with DAC-coated implants, compared to two-stage revision without coating, with reduced overall hospitalization time and antibiotic treatment duration. These findings warrant further studies in the possible applications of antibacterial coating technologies to treat implant-related infections. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Authors: S Klouche; P Leonard; V Zeller; L Lhotellier; W Graff; P Leclerc; P Mamoudy; E Sariali Journal: Orthop Traumatol Surg Res Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 2.256
Authors: Navraj S Nagra; Thomas W Hamilton; Sameer Ganatra; David W Murray; Hemant Pandit Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Bhaveen H Kapadia; Richard A Berg; Jacqueline A Daley; Jan Fritz; Anil Bhave; Michael A Mont Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-06-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Christopher F Wolf; Ning Yan Gu; Jason N Doctor; Paul A Manner; Seth S Leopold Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Slif D Ulrich; Thorsten M Seyler; Derek Bennett; Ronald E Delanois; Khaled J Saleh; Issada Thongtrangan; Michael Kuskowski; Edward Y Cheng; Peter F Sharkey; Javad Parvizi; James B Stiehl; Michael A Mont Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2007-04-19 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Nicola Logoluso; Francesca Alice Pedrini; Carlo Luca Romanò; Antonio Virgilio Pellegrini; Ilaria Morelli; Elena De Vecchi Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 2.102