Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 97-B, Issue SUPP_16 | Pages 92 - 92
1 Dec 2015
Jensen C Hettwer W Horstmann P Petersen M
Full Access

To report our experience with the use of local antibiotic co-delivery with a synthetic bone graft substitute during a second stage re-implantation of an infected proximal humeral replacement.

A 72 year old man was admitted to our department with a pathological fracture through an osteolytic lesion in the left proximal humerus, due to IgG Myelomatosis. He was initially treated with a cemented proximal humerus replacement hemiarthroplasty. Peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) with significant joint distention was evident three weeks post operatively. Revision surgery confirmed presence of a large collection of pus and revealed disruption of the soft tissue reattachment tube, as well as complete retraction of rotator cuff and residual capsule. All modular components were removed and an antibiotic-laden cement spacer (1.8g of Clindamycin and Gentamycin, respectively) was implanted onto the well-fixed cemented humeral stem. Initial treatment with i.v. Amoxicillin/Clavulanic acid was changed to Rifampicin and Fusidic Acid during a further 8 weeks after cultures revealed growth of S. epidermidis. During second stage revision, a hybrid inverse prosthesis with silver coating was implanted, with a total of 20 ml Cerament ™G (injected into the glenoid cavity prior to insertion of the base plate and around the humeral implant-bone interface) and again stabilized with a Trevira tube. Unfortunately, this prosthesis remained unstable, ultimately requiring re-revision to a completely new constrained reverse prosthesis with a custom glenoid shell and silver-coated proximal humeral component.

18 months postoperatively, the patient's shoulder remains pain free and stable, without signs of persistent or reinfection since the initial second stage revision. The function however, unfortunately remains poor.

This case report illustrates the application of an antibiotic-eluting bone graft substitute in a specific clinical situation, where co-delivery of an antibiotic together with a bone remodeling agent may be beneficial to simultaneously address PJI as well as poor residual bone quality.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXXIX | Pages 197 - 197
1 Sep 2012
Jensen C Morrell R Steval A Partington P Reed M Muller S
Full Access

Introduction

Rivaroxaban has been recommended for routine use as a thromboprophylactic agent in patients undergoing lower limb arthroplasty. Trials supporting its use have not fully evaluated the risks of wound complications related to rivaroxaban.

Method

A retrospective cohort analysis of 1558 consecutive patients who underwent total hip or knee replacements within the same hospital during a 19 month period (2009–2010) was performed. The first 489 patients (Group 1) were given tinzaparin postoperatively as per NICE guidance. The following 559 patients (Group 2) were given rivaroxaban. Concerns regarding wound complications prompted a change back to tinzaparin for the next 510 patients (Group 3.) Other than the thromboprophylactic agent used there were no other differences in the pre and postoperative treatments of all these patients.