Literature DB >> 29691181

Success of Two-Stage Reimplantation in Patients Requiring an Interim Spacer Exchange.

Jaiben George1, Evan M Miller1, Gannon L Curtis1, Alison K Klika1, Wael K Barsoum1, Michael A Mont1, Carlos A Higuera1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Some patients undergoing a 2-stage revision for a periprosthetic joint infection require a repeat spacer in the interim (removal of existing spacer with insertion of a new spacer or spacer exchange) due to persistent infection. The objectives of this study are to (1) determine the factors associated with patients who receive a repeat spacer and (2) compare the infection-free survival (overall and stratified by joint type) of reimplantation in patients who did or did not receive a repeat spacer.
METHODS: From 2001 to 2014, 347 hip or knee 2-stage revisions that finally underwent reimplantation and had a minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. An interim spacer exchange was performed in 59 (17%) patients (exchange cohort). Patient-related and organism-related factors were compared between the exchange and non-exchange cohorts. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were performed to assess the success (absence of signs of infection, reoperation for infection, periprosthetic joint infection-related mortality) of both cohorts.
RESULTS: Patients in the exchange group had higher comorbidity score (P = .020), prolonged time to reimplantation (P < .001), and higher prevalence of resistant organisms, though not statistically significant (P = .091). The 5-year infection-free survival rates were 64% (knee 62%, hip 64%) in the exchange cohort, and 78% (knee 77%, hip 78%) in the non-exchange cohort (P = .020).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients requiring an interim spacer exchange were found to have more comorbidities, prolonged treatment period, and were more likely to be infected with a resistant organism. About one-third of such patients became reinfected within 5 years compared to only one-fifth of the patients without an interim spacer exchange.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  2-stage revision; periprosthetic joint infection; reinfection; revision arthroplasty; spacer

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29691181     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.03.038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  5 in total

1.  Cure rate of infections is not an argument for spacer in two-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip.

Authors:  Dominik Adl Amini; Chia H Wu; Carsten Perka; Henrik C Bäcker
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 3.067

2.  The utilization of artificial neural networks for the prediction of 90-day unplanned readmissions following total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Christian Klemt; Venkatsaiakhil Tirumala; Yasamin Habibi; Anirudh Buddhiraju; Tony Lin-Wei Chen; Young-Min Kwon
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-08-07       Impact factor: 2.928

3.  Utilizing a Prefabricated Antibiotic-Impregnated Articular Spacer Combined With an Intramedullary Device for Significant Femoral Bone Loss in Periprosthetic Hip Infection.

Authors:  Justin Stafford; Mitchell Hunter; Hyrum Judd; Arturo Corces
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2022-05-18

Review 4.  Current Concepts on the Application, Pharmacokinetics and Complications of Antibiotic-Loaded Cement Spacers in the Treatment of Prosthetic Joint Infections.

Authors:  Panagiotis V Samelis; Eftychios Papagrigorakis; Eleni Sameli; Andreas Mavrogenis; Olga Savvidou; Panagiotis Koulouvaris
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-01-05

5.  A Low Percentage of Patients Satisfy Typical Indications for Single-stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

Authors:  M E Dombrowski; A E Wilson; R A Wawrose; M J O'Malley; K L Urish; B A Klatt
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 4.755

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.