Abstract
The burden of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) continues to rise and the management of this dreaded complication continues to pose challenges to the orthopaedic community. Dr Buchholz from the Endo Klinik has been credited for reporting the initial observation that addition of antibiotic to polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement lead to better ability to deliver higher concentrations of antibiotic to the joint milieu and avoid administration of high doses of systemic antibiotics with potential for systemic toxicity.
Addition of antibiotics to PMMA cement has continued to be an important aspect of managing patients with chronic PJI. The rationale for this practice is that higher doses of local antibiotics can be reached without placing the patients at risk of systemic toxicity. Whether a one-stage or a two-stage exchange arthroplasty is being performed, antibiotics that can withstand the exothermic reaction of PMMA and are able to elude from cement are added at various doses to the PMMA for later delivery. Although this practice continues to be almost universal, there are a few unknowns. First of all, a recent study raised a valid question regarding this practice. Though intuitively logical, addition of antibiotics to PMMA spacers has not been scrutinised by any level 1 study and hence one is not able to prove that this practice does indeed accomplish its intended objectives of reducing recurrence or persistence of infection. Orthopaedic community is advised to seek avenues to generate this much-needed evidence. The other main unknown is how much, and in some instances which antibiotic, needs to be added to the PMMA cement. Some authorities have declared that antibiotics can be added at high doses, with an average total dose of 10.5 g of vancomycin (range, 3–16 g) and 12.5 g of gentamicin (range, 3.6–19.2 g) in one study, to PMMA cement without the fear of systemic toxicity.
In recent years, renal toxicity and other systemic adverse effects have been attributed to addition of high doses of antibiotics to cement. I have personally witnessed such adverse reactions in a few patients. Although initially I was inclined to “blame” the concurrent administration of systemic antibiotics for the renal toxicity that patients developed following insertion of spacer, selective nephrotoxicity (i.e. reaction to aminoglycoside that was only present in the spacer and not systemically administered) and resolution of the nephrotoxicity upon removal of antibiotic spacer, convinced me that our nephrology colleagues have a valid reason to be concerned about addition of high doses of antibiotics to PMMA spacers.
What has become clear is that high viscosity cements containing MA-MMA copolymers have been shown to have better antibiotic elution profiles than other PMMA formulations. So when fashioning a spacer in the operating room the surgeon needs to be aware of the differences in elution profile of antibiotics from PMMA and individualise the dose of antibiotics being added to spacer based on the type and viscosity of cement being used and the renal status of the patient. Thus, systemic toxicity caused by addition of antibiotics to cement spacer appears to be a real issue in some circumstances and this needs to be born in mind when managing patients with PJI.
There are numerous other issues related to the use of antibiotic cement spacers. In the hip, the lack of adequate offset and limited portfolio of products result in laxity in the soft tissue and subsequent dislocation of the hip. In addition, the dose and type of antibiotic in the premanufactured spacers, at least in the US, are inadequate to lead to a substantial delivery of antibiotics in the local tissues. Because of these issues, I prefer to fabricate “customised” spacers for each patient that I operate on.
