header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Research

DOES ONE-STAGE EXCHANGE WITH ANTIBACTERIAL COATING OF IMPLANTS PROVIDE SIMILAR RESULTS TO A TWO-STAGE PROCEDURE FOR THE TREATMENT OF PERI-PROSTHETIC JOINT INFECTION?

European Orthopaedic Research Society (EORS) 2016, 24th Annual Meeting, 14–16 September 2016. Part 1.



Abstract

Infection remains among the first reasons for failure of joint prosthesis. Currently, the golden standard for treating prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) is two-stage revision. However, two-stage procedures have been reported to be associated with higher costs and possible higher morbidity and mortality, compared to one-stage. Furthermore, recent studies showed the ability of a fast-resorbable, antibacterial-loaded hydrogel coating to reduce surgical site infections after joint replacement, by preventing bacterial colonization of implants. Aim of this study was then to compare the infection recurrence rate after a one-stage, cemenless exchange, performed with an antibacterial coated implant versus a standardized two-stage revision procedure.

In this two-center prospective study, 22 patients, candidate to revision surgery for PJI, were enrolled to undergo a one-stage revision surgery with cementless implants, coated intra-operatively with a fast-resorbable, antibiotic-loaded hyaluronan and poly-D,L-lactide based hydrogel coating (“Defensive Antibacterial Coating”, DAC, Novagenit, Italy). DAC was reconstructed according to manufacturer indications and loaded with Vancomycin or Vancomycin + Meropenem, according to cultural examinations, and directly spread onto the implant before insertion. This prospective cohort was compared with a retrospective series of 22 consecutive patients, matched for age, sex, host type, site of surgery, that underwent a two stage procedure, using a preformed, antibiotic-loaded spacer (Tecres, Italy) and a cementless implant. The second surgery, for definitive implant placing, was performed only after CRP normalization and no clinical sign of infection. Clinical, laboratory and radiographic evaluation were performed at 3, 6 and 12 months, and every 6 months thereafter. Infection recurrence was defined by the presence of a sinus tract communicating with the joint, or at least two among the following criteria: clinical signs of infections; elevated CRP and ESR; elevated synovial fluid WBC count; elevated synovial fluid leukocyte esterase; a positive cultural examination from synovial fluid; radiographic signs of stem loosening.

The two groups did not differ significantly for age, sex, host type and site of surgery (18 knees and 4 hips, respectively). The DAC hydrogel was loaded intra-operatively, according to cultural examination, with vancomycin (14 patients) or vancomycin and meropenem (8 cases). At a mean follow-up of 20.2 ± 6.3 months, 2 patients (9.1%) in the DAC group showed an infection recurrence, compared to 3 patients (13.6%) in the two-stage group. No adverse events associated with the use of DAC or radiographic loosening of the stem were observed at the latest follow-up months.

This is the first report on one-stage cementless revision surgery for PJI, performed with a fast-resorbable antibacterial hydrogel coating. Our data, although in a limited series of patients and at a relatively short follow-up, show similar infection recurrence rate after one-stage exchange with cementless, coated implants, compared to two-stage revision. These findings warrant further studies in the possible applications of antibacterial coating technologies to treat implant-related infections.