Luigi Zagra1, Enrico Gallazzi2, Delia Romanò3, Sara Scarponi3, Carlo Romanò4. 1. Hip Department, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy. luigi.zagra@fastwebnet.it. 2. Hip Department, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Reconstructive Surgery of Osteo-articular Infections, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy. 4. Centro Medico, Corso Venezia 2, 20121, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the hypothesis that a two-stage exchange procedure, performed with an antibiotic-loaded, fast-resorbable hydrogel coating, may provide better infection cure rate than a two-stage procedure without the coating, in patients affected by peri-prosthetic hip infection. METHODS: In this case-control study, 27 patients, treated with a two-stage procedure, using cementless implants coated with an antibiotic-loaded hydrogel (DAC®, "Defensive Antibacterial Coating"), were compared with 27 matched controls, treated with a two-stage cementless revision procedure, without the coating. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 2.7 (minimum 2.1-maximum 3.5) years, no evidence of infection, implant loosening, or adverse events were observed in the DAC-treated group, compared to four cases of infection recurrence in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Although in a relatively limited series of patients our data show that cementless two-stage hip revision, performed with an antibacterial hydrogel coating, may provide better infection control than two-stage without the coating, with reduced hospitalization time, these findings warrant further studies in the possible applications of antibacterial coating technologies to treat implant-related infections.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the hypothesis that a two-stage exchange procedure, performed with an antibiotic-loaded, fast-resorbable hydrogel coating, may provide better infection cure rate than a two-stage procedure without the coating, in patients affected by peri-prosthetic hip infection. METHODS: In this case-control study, 27 patients, treated with a two-stage procedure, using cementless implants coated with an antibiotic-loaded hydrogel (DAC®, "Defensive Antibacterial Coating"), were compared with 27 matched controls, treated with a two-stage cementless revision procedure, without the coating. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 2.7 (minimum 2.1-maximum 3.5) years, no evidence of infection, implant loosening, or adverse events were observed in the DAC-treated group, compared to four cases of infection recurrence in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Although in a relatively limited series of patients our data show that cementless two-stage hip revision, performed with an antibacterial hydrogel coating, may provide better infection control than two-stage without the coating, with reduced hospitalization time, these findings warrant further studies in the possible applications of antibacterial coating technologies to treat implant-related infections.
Entities:
Keywords:
Antibacterial coatings; DAC; Peri-prosthetic joint infection; Revision surgery; Total hip replacement
Authors: Douglas R Osmon; Elie F Berbari; Anthony R Berendt; Daniel Lew; Werner Zimmerli; James M Steckelberg; Nalini Rao; Arlen Hanssen; Walter R Wilson Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Per Hviid Gundtoft; Søren Overgaard; Henrik Carl Schønheyder; Jens Kjølseth Møller; Per Kjærsgaard-Andersen; Alma Becic Pedersen Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 3.717
Authors: D A George; N Logoluso; G Castellini; S Gianola; S Scarponi; F S Haddad; L Drago; C L Romano Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Carlo Luca Romanò; Kostantinos Malizos; Nicola Capuano; Riccardo Mezzoprete; Michele D'Arienzo; Catherine Van Der Straeten; Sara Scarponi; Lorenzo Drago Journal: J Bone Jt Infect Date: 2016-07-19
Authors: Tim Nichol; Jill Callaghan; Robert Townsend; Ian Stockley; Paul V Hatton; Christine Le Maitre; Thomas John Smith; Robert Akid Journal: Bone Joint J Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 5.082