| Literature DB >> 32998728 |
Jun Fu1, Yi Xiang2, Ming Ni1, Jiying Chen3, Xiang Li1, Baozhan Yu1, Kan Liu1, Yonggang Zhou1, Libo Hao4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spacer complications may affect final clinical outcome of the two-stage approach in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) patients. This study aimed to investigate clinical outcomes and complications of augmented antibiotic-loaded cement spacer in PJI patients with acetabular bone defect.Entities:
Keywords: Acetabular bone defect; Augmented antibiotic-loaded cement spacer; Periprosthetic joint infection; Spacer complications
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32998728 PMCID: PMC7528588 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-020-01831-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1Schematic diagram of screw-cement-shell. a Superior wall of acetabular bone defect. b Two unicortical cancellous screws were inserted perpendicular to the surface of ilium, with approximately 20-25 mm of screw shaft remaining prominent. c, d Antibiotic-infused cement was placed around exposed part of the screws
Fig. 2Schematic diagram of handmade acetabular spacer. a Medial wall of acetabular bone defect. b Handmade acetabular spacer was made during operation. c Acetabular spacer was placed to prevent femoral spacer into acetabulum
Fig. 3a Self-made spacer mold used in our study. b The spacer was made by self-made spacer mold
Demographic and clinic features of the eligible patients
| Features | Number of patients (%) |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 46.7 ± 15.4 |
| Gender | |
| Male | 11 (42.31) |
| Female | 15 (57.69) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.1 ± 4.3 |
| Acetabular bone defect type | |
| Avascular necrosis of femoral head | 10 (38.46) |
| Femoral neck fracture | 8 (30.77) |
| Hip osteoarthritis | 4 (15.38) |
| Ankylosing spondylitis | 3 (11.54) |
| Developmental dysplasia of hip | 1 (3.85) |
| Microorganism | |
| Staphylococcus | 15 (57.69) |
| Multiple organisms | 5 (19.23) |
| Negative | 5 (19.23) |
| Type of prosthesis fixation | |
| Screw-cement-shell | 15 (57.69) |
| Handmade acetabular spacer | 11 (42.31) |
| Follow-up time (years) | 4.1 ± 2.2 |
| First-stage (Paprosky) | |
| I | 7 (26.92) |
| II | 9 (34.62) |
| III | 8 (30.77) |
| Second-stage (Paprosky) | |
| I | 4 (15.38) |
| II | 11 (42.31) |
| III | 9 (34.62) |
| Hip Harris score (first stage) | 40.9 ± 14.0 |
| Hip Harris score (second stage) | 81.2 ± 11.2 |
| Interval duration between primary arthroplasty and confirmed PJI (months) | 52.3 ± 54.6 |
| Time between stages (months) | 5.3 ± 3.7 |
BMI body mass index
Fig. 4a One case with Paprosky IIB acetabular bone defect. b, c Screw-cement-shell was applied to reconstruct superior wall. d X-ray after spacer implantation. f X-ray after prosthesis implantation
Fig. 5a One case with Paprosky IIC acetabular bone defect. b Handmade acetabular spacer was applied to reconstruct medial wall. d X-ray after spacer implantation. f X-ray after prosthesis implantation
Acetabular bone defects distribution according to Paprosky classification before the first stage and second stage
| Paprosky stage | First stage | Second stage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | 7 | 4 | 0.3029 |
| II | 9 | 11 | 0.5582 |
| III | 8 | 9 | 0.7628 |
Local complications during different periods
| Complications | Number of patients (%) |
|---|---|
| Resection arthroplasty period | |
| Persistent infection | 3 (11.54) |
| Wound healing disorder | 1 (3.85) |
| Bone fracture | 1 (3.85) |
| Reimplantation period | |
| Blood loss | 6 (23.08) |
| Bone fracture | 1 (3.85) |
| New infection | 1 (3.85) |
| Nerve palsy | 1 (3.85) |
| After reimplantation | |
| Leg length discrepancy | 3 (11.54) |
| Reinfection | 2 (7.69) |
| Dislocation | 1 (3.85) |
| Wound healing disturbance | 2 (7.69) |
| Bone fracture | 1 (3.85) |
| Aseptic loosening | 1 (3.85) |