PURPOSE: Due to numerous advantages of the combination of clindamycin and gentamicin in polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement, promising preliminary results have been reported. However, there are no data that analyse mid-term outcomes. METHODOLOGY: This pilot study included patients who experienced 5 years of follow-up and who were treated with gentamicin- and clindamycin-loaded (G+C) PMMA cement. They were divided into two groups: (1) the periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) comprising patients who underwent a one-stage exchange, and (2) aseptic group comprising patients who underwent aseptic revision or primary arthroplasty procedures, but were considered to be high-risk patients for infection. We evaluated the rate of septic and aseptic revision arthroplasty with a minimum of 5-year follow-up.Results/Key findings. A total of 32 patients in both groups were included. Eighteen patients belonged to the PJI-group and 14 belonged to the aseptic group. There was no reinfection among the patients of the PJI group. Infection was prevented in the aseptic group, including patients with a history of PJI or at higher risk of infection. No patient underwent an exchange of the cemented prosthesis at the 5-year follow-up [72-82 months, standard deviation (sd)=3.3]. CONCLUSIONS: The local use of G+C bone cement during septic and aseptic revision arthroplasty, was associated with a high success rate for the eradication of infection following one-stage septic exchange, and with prevention of infection in high-risk patients.
PURPOSE: Due to numerous advantages of the combination of clindamycin and gentamicin in polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement, promising preliminary results have been reported. However, there are no data that analyse mid-term outcomes. METHODOLOGY: This pilot study included patients who experienced 5 years of follow-up and who were treated with gentamicin- and clindamycin-loaded (G+C) PMMA cement. They were divided into two groups: (1) the periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) comprising patients who underwent a one-stage exchange, and (2) aseptic group comprising patients who underwent aseptic revision or primary arthroplasty procedures, but were considered to be high-risk patients for infection. We evaluated the rate of septic and aseptic revision arthroplasty with a minimum of 5-year follow-up.Results/Key findings. A total of 32 patients in both groups were included. Eighteen patients belonged to the PJI-group and 14 belonged to the aseptic group. There was no reinfection among the patients of the PJI group. Infection was prevented in the aseptic group, including patients with a history of PJI or at higher risk of infection. No patient underwent an exchange of the cemented prosthesis at the 5-year follow-up [72-82 months, standard deviation (sd)=3.3]. CONCLUSIONS: The local use of G+C bone cement during septic and aseptic revision arthroplasty, was associated with a high success rate for the eradication of infection following one-stage septic exchange, and with prevention of infection in high-risk patients.
Authors: Nan Jiang; Devendra H Dusane; Jacob R Brooks; Craig P Delury; Sean S Aiken; Phillip A Laycock; Paul Stoodley Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Alina Robu; Aurora Antoniac; Robert Ciocoiu; Elena Grosu; Julietta V Rau; Marco Fosca; Ivan I Krasnyuk; Gratiela Gradisteanu Pircalabioru; Veronica Manescu Paltanea; Iulian Antoniac; Sebastian Gradinaru Journal: Biomimetics (Basel) Date: 2022-09-17