Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Two-stage revision of prosthetic hip joint infections using antibiotic-loaded cement spacers: When is the best time to perform the second stage?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

Managing periprosthetic joint infections remains a challenging task, and adequate treatment strategies seem to be mandatory to avoid irreversible damage of the affected joint and/or systemic complications. Two-stage revision arthroplasty includes removing all implants and subsequent implantation of an antibiotic-loaded cement spacer, followed by revision arthroplasty as the second stage. Although this procedure is well described in the literature, results remain unpredictable due to various clinical findings and the absence of prospective randomised trials. We analysed (1) mortality and (2) reinfection rates in a series of patients who underwent two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic hip joint infections with antibiotic-augmented joint spacers. We maintained a special focus on the spacer retention period and its influence on outcome in order to determine the best time for second-stage surgery.

Patients and methods

A consecutive series of 76 patients with native and periprosthetic hip joint infections and who underwent two-stage revision surgery with antibiotic-loaded cement spacers were studied between 2005 and 2010. The second-stage operation was performed when it was assumed that infection was eradicated. The further operative procedure depended upon intra-operative findings (frozen section, local status).

Results

Mean implant-free period with the antibiotic-loaded spacer in situ was 12.6 weeks. Spacer re-implantation was necessary in 13 cases due to positive signs of acute infection in the frozen section and suspect intra-operative findings. Eight patients were not operated for a second time in the investigated time period due to poor general condition. In 40 patients, the spacer retention period was four to 11 weeks: <four weeks for five and >11 weeks for 23. We observed a significantly higher proportion of women free from reinfection in the four to 11-week group than in patients with the shorter or longer period.

Conclusion

According to our findings, the optimal timing for second-stage surgery as a second-stage procedure is between four and 11 weeks. A significantly optimal reinfection rate was seen in patients undergoing revision arthroplasty within that time frame, and 90 % of those patients remained infection free until final follow-up.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wolf CF, Gu NY, Doctor JN, Manner PA, Leopold SS (2011) Comparison of one and two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasty complicated by Infection-A Markov expected-utility decision analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:631–639

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE (2004) Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med 351:1645–1654

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Romanò CL, Romanò D, Meani E, Logoluso N, Drago L (2011) Two-stage revision surgery with preformed spacers and cementless implants for septic hiparthritis: a prospective, non-randomized cohort study. BMC Infect Dis 11:129

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Westrich GH, Salvati EA, Brause B (1999) Postoperative infection. In: Bono JV, McCarty JC, Thornhill TS, Bierbaum BE, Turner RH (eds) Revision total hip arthroplasty. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 371–390

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. McPherson, Woodson C, Holtom P, Roidis N, Shufelt C, Patzakis M (2002) Periprosthetic total hip infection: outcomes using a staging system. Clin Orthop Relat Res (403):8–15

  6. Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF, Bauer TW, Springer BD, Della Valle CJ, Garvin KL, Mont MA, Wongworawat MD, Zalavras CG (2011) New definition for periprosthetic joint infection-from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:2992–2994

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Berbari EF, Hanssen AD, Duffy MC et al (1998) Risk factors for prosthetic joint infection: case–control study. Clin Infect Dis 27:1247–1254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Meehan AM, Osmon DR, Duffy MC, Hanssen AD, Keating MR (2003) Outcome of penicillin-susceptible streptococcal prostheticjoint infection treated with debridement andretention of theprosthesis. Clin Infect Dis 36:845–849

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Elgeidi A, Elganainy AE, Abou Elkhier N, Rakha S (2014) Interleukin-6 and other inflammatory markers in diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. Int Orthop 38(12):2591–2595. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2475-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Langlais F (2003) Can we improve the resultsof revision arthroplasty for infected total hipreplacement? J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 85:637–640

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lausen B, Schumacher M (1992) Maximally selected rank statistics. Biometrics 48:73–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hothorn T maxstat: Maximally Selected Rank Statistics. R package version 0.7-18, 02 Sep 2013 (available from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/maxstat/)

  13. Fisman DN, Reilly DT, Karchmer AW, Goldie SJ (2001) Clinical effectiveness and costeffectivenessof 2 management strategies forinfected total hip arthroplasty in the elderly. Clin Infect Dis 32:419–430

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Windsor RE, Insall JN, Urs WK, Miller DV, Brause BD (1990) Two-stage reimplantationfor the salvage of total knee arthroplasty complicatedby infection: further follow-up and refinement of indications. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:272–278

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Colyer RA, Capello WN (1994) Surgical treatmentof the infected hip implant: two-stagereimplantation with a one-month interval. Clin Orthop 298:75–79

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wolf M, Clar H, Friesenbichler J, Schwantzer G, Bernhardt G, Gruber G, Glehr M, Leithner A, Sadoghi P (2014) Prosthetic joint infection following total hip replacement: results of one-stage versus two-stage exchange. Int Orthop 38(7):1363–1368. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2309-y

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nelson CL, Jones RB, Wingert NC, Foltzer M, Bowen TR (2014) Sonication of antibiotic spacers predicts failure during two-stage revision for prosthetic knee and hip infections. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:2208–2214

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hirakawa K, Stulberg BN, Wilde AH, Bauer TW, Secic M (1998) Results of 2-stage reimplantation for infected total kneearthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 13:22–28

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kendall RW, Duncan CP, Beauchamp CP (1995) Bacterial growth on antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement: a prospective in vivo retrieval study. J Arthroplasty 10:817–822

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mariconda M, Ascione T, Balato G et al (2013) Sonication of antibiotic-loaded cement spacers in a two-stage revision protocol for infected joint arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14:193. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-193

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lass R, Giurea A, Kubista B, Hirschl AM, Graninger W, Presterl E, Windhager R, Holinka J (2014) Bacterial adherence to different components of total hip prosthesis in patients with prosthetic joint infection. Int Orthop 38(8):1597–1602

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Maier GS, Horas K, Seeger JB, Roth KE, Kurth AA, Maus U (2014) Is there an association between periprosthetic joint infection and low vitamin D levels? Int Orthop 38(7):1499–1504. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2338-6

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pignatti P, Nitta S, Dallari D, Sabbioni G, Stagni C, Giunti A (2010) Two stage revision in periprostetic infection: results of 41 cases. Open Orthop J 4:193–200

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Senthi S, Munro JT, Pitto RP (2011) Infection in total hip replacement: meta-analysis. Int Orthop 35:253–260

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Masri BA, Panagiotopoulos KP, Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP (2007) Cementless two-stage exchange arthroplastyfor infection after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22:72–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kraay MJ, Goldberg VM, Fitzgerald SJ, Salata MJ (2005) Cementless two-staged total hip arthroplasty for deep periprostheticinfection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 441:243–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Fink B, Grossmann A, Fuerst M, Schäfer P, Frommelt L (2009) Two-stage cementless revision of infected hip endoprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:1848–1858

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Huang R, Hu CC, Adeli B, Mortazavi J, Parvizi J (2012) Culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection does not preclude infection control. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:2717–2723

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ekpo TE, Berend KR, Morris MJ, Adams JB, Lombardi AV (2014) Partial two-stage exchange for infected total hip arthroplasty: a preliminary report. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:437–448

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria

    Ines Vielgut, Patrick Sadoghi, Matthias Wolf, Lukas Holzer, Andreas Leithner, Bernhard Frankl & Mathias Glehr

  2. Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria

    Gerold Schwantzer

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Rudolf Poolman

Authors
  1. Ines Vielgut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick Sadoghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthias Wolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lukas Holzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andreas Leithner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gerold Schwantzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rudolf Poolman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Bernhard Frankl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mathias Glehr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ines Vielgut.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vielgut, I., Sadoghi, P., Wolf, M. et al. Two-stage revision of prosthetic hip joint infections using antibiotic-loaded cement spacers: When is the best time to perform the second stage?. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 39, 1731–1736 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2751-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2751-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation