Objectives. Vancomycin and fosfomycin are antibiotics commonly used to treat methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. This study compares the in vitro inhibitory effects against MRSA of articulating cement spacers impregnated with either vancomycin or fosfomycin. Methods. Vancomycin-impregnated articulating cement spacers and fosfomycin-impregnated articulating cement spacers were immersed in sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) solutions and then incubated. Samples were collected for bioactivity evaluation. The aliquots were tested for MRSA inhibition with the disc diffusion method, and the inhibition zone diameters were measured. The inhibition zone differences were evaluated using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test. Results. The vancomycin group had significantly larger inhibition zones than the fosfomycin group from day three through to completion of the fourth week of incubation (p < 0.001). The vancomycin group exhibited a MRSA inhibition zone up to four weeks but the fosfomycin group showed an inhibition zone for only three days and after that did not show the the potential to inhibit MRSA. Conclusion. This in vitro study found that the inhibitory effect of vancomycin-impregnated articulating cement spacers against MRSA outperformed fosfomycin-impregnated articulating cement spacers. Further comparing our results to other published reports suggests there might be a limitation of the disc diffusion bioassay to show a large inhibitory zone in a high concentration of a highly soluble antibiotic. Cite this article: V. Yuenyongviwat, N. Ingviya, P. Pathaburee, B. Tangtrakulwanich. Inhibitory effects of vancomycin and fosfomycin on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from antibiotic-impregnated articulating cement spacers. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:132–136. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.63.2000639

Around 1% of total hip replacements are follow by prosthetic joint infection (PJI). There is uncertainty about best treatment method for PJI, and the most recent high quality systematic reviews in unselected patients indicates that re-infection rates following one-stage and two-stage revision arthroplasty are relatively similar. In the absence of evidence randomised controlled trials will help to identify the most clinically and cost-effective treatment for PJI. Before such trials are conducted, there is a need to establish reasons for current practice and to identify whether trials are feasible. This study aimed to deliver research that would inform trial design. Specifically, we aimed to characterise consultant orthopaedic surgeons' decisions about performing either one-stage or two-stage exchange arthroplasty for patients with PJI after hip replacement and to identify whether a randomised trial comparing one-stage with two-stage revision would be possible. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 consultant surgeons from 5 high-volume National Health Service (NHS) orthopaedic departments in the UK. Surgeons were sampled on the basis that they perform revision surgery for PJI after hip arthroplasty and final sample size was justified on the basis of thematic saturation. Surgeons were interviewed face-to-face (n=2) or via telephone (n=10). The interview study took place before design of a multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial comparing patient and clinical outcomes after one-stage or two-stage revision arthroplasty. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and analysed using a thematic approach, with 25% of transcripts independently double-coded. Results: There is no standard surgical response to the treatment of PJI and surgeons manage a complex balance of factors when choosing a surgical strategy. These include multiple patient-related factors, their own knowledge and expertise, available infrastructure and the infecting organism. Surgeons questioned whether evidence supports the emergence of two-stage revision as a method. They described the use of loosely cemented articulating spacers as a way of managing uncertainty about best treatment method. All surgeons were supportive of a randomised trial to compare one-stage and two-stage revision surgery for PJI after hip replacement. Surgeons reported that they would put patients forward for randomisation when there was uncertainty about best treatment. Surgeons highlighted the need for evidence to support their choice of revision. Some surgeons now use revision methods that can better address both clinical outcomes and patients' quality of life, such as loosely cemented articulating spacers. Surgeons thought that a randomised controlled trial comparing one-stage and two-stage exchange joint replacement is needed and that randomisation would be feasible. The next stage of the work was to design a multi-centre randomised controlled trial, this has been achieved and the trial is now ongoing in the UK

Infected non-unions of proximal femoral fractures are difficult to treat. If debridement and revision fixation is unsuccessful, staged revision arthroplasty may be required. Non-viable tissue must be resected, coupled with the introduction of an antibiotic-eluting temporary spacer prior to definitive reconstruction. Definitive tissue microbiological diagnosis and targeted antibiotic therapy are required. In cases of significant proximal femoral bone loss, spacing options are limited. We present a case of a bisphosphonate-induced subtrochanteric fracture that progressed to infected non-union. Despite multiple washouts and two revision fixations, the infection remained active with an unfavourable antibiogram. The patient required staged revision arthroplasty including a proximal femoral resection. To enable better function by maintaining leg length and offset, a custom-made antibiotic-eluting articulating temporary spacer, the Cement-a-TAN, was fabricated. Using a trochanteric entry cephalocondylar nail as a scaffold, bone cement was moulded in order to fashion an anatomical, patient-specific, proximal femoral spacer. Following resolution of the infection, the Cement-a-TAN was removed and a proximal femoral arthroplasty was successfully performed. Cement-a-TAN is an excellent temporary spacing technique in staged proximal femoral replacement for infected non-union of the proximal femur where there has been significant bone loss. It preserves mobility and maintains leg length, offset and periarticular soft-tissue tension