Abstract
Purpose:
Two-stage revision is the gold standard treatment for chronic periprosthetic infection of the hip or knee. Implantation of a functional antibiotic spacer allows patients the option of two stage revision or living with the spacer in place. Some patients may be satisfied with the activity level that they attain with the functional antibiotic spacer and may avoid the morbidity of a second surgery.
Methods:
We retrospectively examined the outcomes of 30 joints in 27 patients treated for chronic periprosthetic infection of the hip or knee at a mean follow-up of 27 months (range 11–46 months). Comparing the patients treated with two-stage revision to those patients living with a functional antibiotic spacer, we used University of California Los Angeles activity scores, modified Harris hip scores, and patient satisfaction measures to answer two main questions: (1) Is there a significant difference in activity level? (2) Is there a significant difference in patient satisfaction? Patient satisfaction was measured on a 1–100 scale with 100 being completely satisfied.
Results:
There were no statistically significant differences in the American Society of Anesthesiologists scores between the groups—mean 2.69 in the two-stage group and mean 3.00 in the spacer group (p value 0.255). Statistically significant differences were found between the groups for University of California Los Angeles activity scores—mean 5.3 in the two-stage group and mean 2.8 in the spacer group (p value 0.027). There were no statistically significant differences in modified Harris hip scores—mean 55.6 in the two-stage group and mean 41.6 in the spacer group (p value 0.34). In the subgroup analysis of the modified Harris hip score questions, there was a statistically significant difference in the need for support when ambulating—mean 4.21 in the two-stage group and mean 2.45 in the spacer group (p value 0.024)—and in the distance that can be walked—mean 6.15 in the two-stage group and mean 2.0 in the spacer group (p value 0.005). No statistically significant differences were found in patient satisfaction measures—mean 70.0 in the two-stage group and mean 76.6 in the spacer group (p value 0.65)—though the mean satisfaction measure was higher in the spacer group.
Conclusion:
Patients living with a functional antibiotic spacer are less active than patients undergoing a two-stage revision for chronic periprosthetic infection of the hip or knee. Specifically, patients living with a functional antibiotic spacer need more support when ambulating and ambulate shorter distances than patients, who undergo two-stage revision surgery. Despite the decreased activity level, patients living with a functional antibiotic spacer are just as satisfied with the outcome of their joint as those patients treated with a two-stage revision. Patients with modest activity goals may be satisfied to live with a functional antibiotic spacer and to avoid a second surgery.
