Aims. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a challenging complication of any arthroplasty procedure. We reviewed our use of static antibiotic-loaded cement spacers (ABLCSs) for staged management of PJI where segmental bone loss, ligamentous instability, or soft-tissue defects necessitate a static construct. We reviewed factors contributing to their failure and techniques to avoid these complications when using ABLCSs in this context. Methods. A retrospective analysis was conducted of 94 patients undergoing first-stage revision of an infected knee prosthesis between September 2007 and January 2020 at a single institution. Radiographs and clinical records were used to assess and classify the incidence and causes of static spacer failure. Of the 94 cases, there were 19 primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs), ten revision TKAs (varus-valgus constraint), 20 hinged TKAs, one arthrodesis (nail), one failed spacer (performed elsewhere), 21 distal femoral endoprosthetic arthroplasties, and 22 proximal tibial arthroplasties. Results. A total of 35/94 patients (37.2%) had spacer-related complications, of which 26/35 complications (74.3%) were because of mechanical failure of the spacer construct, while 9/35 (25.7%) were due to recurrence of infection. Risk factors for internal failure were a construct where the total intramedullary spacer length was less than twice the length of the central osseous defect (p = 0.009), where proximal or distal intraosseous spacer contact was < 10%, and after tibial tubercle osteotomy (p = 0.005). The incidence of spacer complications significantly increased the time to second stage: mean 157 days (42 to 458) in those without complications versus 227 days (11 to 528) with complications (p = 0.014). Conclusion. The failure rate of static antibiotic-loaded cement spacers is much higher than anticipated. Complications of the spacer significantly increased the time to second-stage revision. The risk of mechanical failure is significantly increased if the spacer is less than double the size of the segmental defect, or if inadequate reinforcement is inserted into the residual bone. These findings serve as a guide for surgeons to avoid mechanical complications with static spacers. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1067–1073

Aims

To explore the clinical efficacy of using two different types of articulating spacers in two-stage revision for chronic knee periprosthetic joint infection (kPJI).

Surgical treatment of Hip PJI by resection of the infected implants and tissue and placement of a “spacer” which elutes antibiotic via antibiotic loaded cement is an accepted treatment option. There is some controversy over whether this “spacer” should be articulating or static. Proponents of the articulating option argue that there is improved function and maintenance of the soft tissue envelop. Critics have suggested that additional biomaterials may compromise eradication of infection. This study compares our results of the 2 treatment options. A review of our institutional PJI database between 2016 and 2021 identified 87 patients who were treated with resection arthroplasty for unilateral total hip PJI. The cohort was analyzed for demographics and type for surgery, as well as medical comorbidities, survivorship, and treatment success. 44 patients were female, the mean age of all patients was 62. 44 patients were treated with Articulating apacers, and 43 patients treated with static spacers. There was no significant difference between ASA or Elixhauser score, and no significant difference between mortality or treatment failure. This study did not show any difference between the patients who receive static spacers, from those who received articulating spacers, and deomstrated similar treatment success rates. From this data there does not appear to be any difference in success rates between those patients that were treated with static spacers and those that were treated with articulating spacers

Aim. The primary endpoint of this study is to characterize the progression of bone defects at the femoral and tibial side in patients who sustained PJI of the knee that underwent two-stage revision with spacer implantation. In addition, we want to analyze the differences between functional moulded and hand-made spacers. Methods. A retrospective analysis of patients that underwent two-stage revision due to PJI of the knee between January 2014 and December 2021 at our institution. Diagnosis of infection was based on the criteria of the Muscoloskeletal Infection Society. The bone defect evaluation was performed intraoperatively based on the AORI classification. The basal evaluation was performed at the time the resection arthroplasty and spacer implantation surgery. The final evaluation was performed at the second-stage surgery, at the time of spacer removal and revision implant positioning. The differences between groups were characterized by using T-test student for continuous variables, and by using chi-square for categorical variables. A p-value < 0.05 was defined as significant. Results. Complete data of 37 two-stage TKAs revision were included in the study. An articulating moulded functional spacer was used in 14 (35.9%) cases, while a hand-made spacer was used in 23 (58.9%) cases. The average length of interval period (excluding the time for patients that retained the spacer) was 146.6 days. A bone defects progression based on the AORI classification was documented in 24 cases at the femoral side (61.6%), a bone defect progression was documented in 17 cases at the tibial side (43.6%), and a bone defect at both sides was documented in 13 cases (33.3%). A statistically significant greater bone defect progression at the tibial side was observed when hand-made spacers were used. A complication during the interval period was reported in five cases (12.8%) and postoperative complication was reported in 9 cases (23.1%). Conclusions. When comparing patients in which a functional articulating spacer was used, with patients in which static spacer was used, we reported a statistically significant reduced bone defect progression during the interval period at the femoral side only when moulded spacers were used. We observed a higher incidence of bone defect progression also at the tibial and both sides when hand-made spacers were used. This is the first study that documented the bone defect progression during two-stage revision of the knee, the results observed in this study are very encouraging

Aims

Two-stage exchange revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed in case of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been considered for many years as being the gold standard for the treatment of chronic infection. However, over the past decade, there have been concerns about its safety and its effectiveness. The purposes of our study were to investigate our practice, collecting the overall spacer complications, and then to analyze their risk factors.

Aims

The outcome of repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains unknown. The aim of this study was to report the infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival of repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange, and to determine whether the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) stage is associated with subsequent infection-related failure.

Aims

Single-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is gaining popularity in treating chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). We have introduced this approach to our clinical practice and sought to evaluate rates of reinfection and re-revision, along with predictors of failure of both single- and two-stage rTKA for chronic PJI.

Aims

The success rates of two-stage revision arthroplasty for infection have evolved since their early description. The implementation of internationally accepted outcome criteria led to the readjustment of such rates. However, patients who do not undergo reimplantation are usually set aside from these calculations. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of two-stage revision arthroplasty when considering those who do not undergo reimplantation, and to investigate the characteristics of this subgroup.

Aims

To explore the effect of different types of articulating antibiotic-loaded cement spacers in two-stage revision for chronic hip prosthetic joint infection (PJI).

Aims

Our objective is to describe our early and mid-term results with the use of a new simple primary knee prosthesis as an articulating spacer in planned two-stage management for infected knee arthroplasty. As a second objective, we compared outcomes between the group with a retained first stage and those with a complete two-stage revision.

Aims

The integrity of the soft tissue envelope is crucial for successful treatment of infected total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rate of limb salvage, infection control, and clinical function following microvascular free flap coverage for salvage of the infected TKA.

Aims

Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is the most common definitive treatment for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the USA. Complications that occur during treatment are often not considered. The purpose of this study was to analyze complications in patients undergoing two-stage exchange for infected total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and determine when they occur.

Background. The purpose of this multi-center, randomized clinical trial was to compare static and articulating spacers in the treatment of PJI complicating total knee arthroplasty TKA. Methods. 68 Patients treated with two-stage exchange arthroplasty were randomized to either a static (32 patients) or an articulating (36 patients) spacer. A power analysis determined that 28 patients per group were necessary to detect a 13º difference in range of motion between groups. Six patients were excluded after randomization, six died, and seven were lost to follow-up prior to two years. Results. Patients in the static group had a hospital length of stay that was one day greater than the articulating group (6.1 vs. 5.1 days; p=0.032); no other differences were noted perioperatively. At a mean 3.5 years (range, 2.0 to 6.4 years), 49 patients were available for evaluation. Mean motion arc in the articulating group was 113.0º compared to 100.2º in the static group (p=0.001). The mean Knee Society Score was significantly higher in the articulating cohort (79.4 vs. 69.8 points; p=0.043). Although not significantly different with the sample size studied, static spacers were associated with a greater need for an extensile exposure at the time of reimplantation (16.7% vs. 3.8%) and a higher rate of reoperation (33.3% vs. 12.0%). Conclusions. Articulating spacers provided significantly greater range of motion and better clinical outcomes scores. Static spacers also appeared to affect early postoperative rehabilitation, as evidenced by a longer hospital stay following removal of the infected implant and were associated with a trend towards a greater need for extensile exposures at the time of reimplantation. Further, while it has been commonly believed that static spacers would improve infection control, there was no difference in the failure rate secondary to reinfection and there was a trend towards higher risk of reoperation in patients who received a static spacer. When the soft tissue envelope allows and if there is adequate bony support, an articulating spacer is associated with improved outcomes. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of transferring patients to a specialized arthroplasty centre between the first and second stages (interstage) of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee.

Aims

The increasing infection burden after total hip arthroplasty (THA) has seen a rise in the use of two-stage exchange arthroplasty and the use of increasingly powerful antibiotics at the time of this procedure. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of failed two-stage revisions during the past decade. The aim of this study was to clarify the outcome of repeat two-stage revision THA following a failed two-stage exchange due to recurrent prosthetic joint infection (PJI).

Aims

The aims of this study were to report the efficacy of revision surgery for patients with co-infective bacterial and fungal prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) presenting to a single institution, and to identify prognostic factors that would guide management.

The rate of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is approximately 1%. As the number of THAs performed each year continue to increase (550,000 by 2030), a corresponding increase in the number of hip PJI cases is likely to occur. A chronic deep infection may be treated by either chronic suppression, irrigation and debridement, single-stage exchange, or two-stage exchange. In the United States, the gold standard for chronic PJI continues to be a two-stage exchange. The benefit of an antibiotic impregnated cement is that they produce higher local concentrations of antibiotics than systemic intravenous administration. Hip spacers may be either static or articulating. Static spacers are reserved for cases of massive acetabular bone loss in which an articulating spacer is not feasible. A static spacer consists of a block of antibiotic cement in the native acetabulum and antibiotic coated rod in the femoral canal. Limb shortening, loss of soft tissue planes, and disuse osteopenia and muscle atrophy are all limitations of static spacers. In contrast, articulating spacers fulfill the goals of the interim construct during two-stage exchange which is to enhance eradication of the infecting organism through drug elution, to maintain limb length, to facilitate exposure during revision surgery, and to improve functional mobilization. Articulating spacers may be divided into three general categories based on method of spacer creation: Handmade custom spacers, prefabricated spacers, custom molded spacers (hemiarthroplasty molds and molded stem with cemented all-polyethylene cup). Handmade custom spacers are usually created with K-wire or rush rods coated with antibiotic cement. Handmade spacers are relatively simple to make, they are economical, and the amount and type of antibiotics incorporated can be customised for the infecting organism. Commercially available hemiarthroplasty spacers can be either prefabricated (Spacer G, Exactech, Gainesville. FL) or made intraoperatively (Stage One, Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN) are available in several head and stem sizes. The advantage of prefabricated spacers is that they do not require additional time to mold in the operating room. The downside of prefabricated spacers is that the antibiotic concentration and type is predetermined. A custom molded stem with cemented all-polyethylene cup can be made with off the shelf implants or used as part of a commercially available spacer (PROSTALAC, DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN). A common antibiotic/cement combination includes Tobramycin (3.6 g/40 g of cement) and vancomycin (1.5 g/40 g of cement). In all of these spacer constructs, the principles of using a high-elution cement mixed without a vacuum and with high doses of heat stable antibiotics are consistent. Tobramycin works synergistically to improve Vancomycin elution properties and is usually added in higher doses. Overall infection eradication is similar between all categories of spacers and range between 90–97%. Complications after placement of an articulating spacer are often specific to the type of spacer used. Handmade spaces that have K-wires for support are at risk for spacer cement fracture. Spacer dislocation is also a common complication in up to 15% of cases with all types of spacers. In addition, periprosthetic fractures can occur postoperatively in up to 10% of patients. Overall, despite this complication profile, articulating antibiotic spacers have excellent rates of infection eradication and offer improved mobilization in the interim two stage period and reduce operative time, complexity, and morbidity during reimplantation

Introduction. Extraction of implants due to periprosthetic infection (PJI) following complex revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) with extensive hardware can be a daunting undertaking for surgeon and patient alike. We question whether irrigation and debridement (I&D) has a role in this difficult situation with respect to infection control, reoperation, and function. Methods. rTKAs for PJI from 2005–2016 were reviewed. Extensive hardware was defined as: metaphyseal cone/sleeve fixation, distal femoral replacement, periprosthetic fracture hardware, or stems >75mm. Cases were categorized by treatment (I&D or 2-stage exchange). Results. 87 patients were identified with extensive hardware and PJI − 63 I&Ds and 42 2-stages. Follow-up was 3.7 years. Success defined as no re-operation for infection was similar − 38/63 (60.3%) I&D vs 28/42 (66.7%) 2-stage (p=0.54). 26/42 (61.9%) 2-stages required static spacers for post-extraction bone loss or wound problems. Only 14/42 (33%) 2-stages were successfully replanted without re-infection. 11/42 (26.1%) 2-stages had retained spacers while 7/42 (16.7%) 2-stages were eventually fused. In contrast, 38/63 (60.3%) I&Ds maintained original implants without further surgery. 8/63 (12.7%) required repeat I&D; 9/63 (14.3%) underwent eventual 2-stage. Chronic antibiotic suppression was utilized in 53/63 (84.1%) I&Ds and 17/42 (40.5%) 2-stages (p<0.001). Amputation rates were similar − 9/63 (14.3%) I&D vs 7/42 (16.7%) 2-stage (p=0.79). Ambulatory rates were similar − 46/63 (73.0%) I&D vs 24/42 (57.1%) 2-stage (p=0.09). More patients who underwent I&D had a functional TKA at final follow-up (53/63 (84.1%) I&D vs 20/42 (47.6%) 2-stage; p<0.001). Mortality was high − 22/59 (37.3%) I&D vs 13/37 (35.1%) 2-stage (p=1.00). Conclusion. In the setting of PJI following rTKA with extensive hardware, morbidity and mortality is high. I&D with chronic suppression appears as effective as 2-stage procedures in preventing reoperation for infection and maintaining ambulatory status while avoiding the morbidity of 2-stage exchange