Published online Dec 18, 2020. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v11.i12.595
Peer-review started: April 11, 2020
First decision: September 24, 2020
Revised: October 9, 2020
Accepted: October 26, 2020
Article in press: October 26, 2020
Published online: December 18, 2020
Processing time: 246 Days and 21.8 Hours
Infection is a tremendous complication of atheroplasty surgery. In case of chronic infection, a two-stage revision procedure is indicated. For the interval period, several types of antibiotic-loaded spacers are available. Prefabricated spacers have a high complication rate, with instability as its main problem. In recent years, we have implemented the use of a functional articulating antibiotic loaded interval spacer.
The current literature lacks reports on the efficacy and safety of different types of spacers used in two-stage revision of an infected total hip arthroplasty. Physicians are still performing two-stage revision with an interval Girdlestone situation or with a prefabricated spacer, even though the patients' mobility is severely compromised and prefabricated spacers are known to have a high dislocation rate.
This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of the functional articulating spacer to the previously used prefabricated spacer. We compared the groups on infection eradication rate, complications and functional and patient reported outcome.
We retrospectively reviewed all patients treated with two-stage revision of an infected total hip arthroplasty between 2003 and 2016.
We treated 55 patient with a prefabricated spacer and 15 patients with a functional articulating spacer. The patient reported outcomes for the hip osteoarthritis outcome score and EQ-5D-3L were significantly better for the functional articulating spacer group (both P < 0.01). The infection eradication rate was comparable between the groups (93% and 78%, P > 0.05). The risk of dislocation was comparable, but the number of dislocations was significantly higher for the prefabricated spacer group (P < 0.05).
Functional articulating spacers lead to comparable infection eradication rate, improved patient reported outcome and less complications compared to prefabricated spacers used for two-stage revision of the infected hip.
Future studies should evaluate whether our findings can be affirmed in a prospective study with a larger number of patients. Also, it should be evaluated whether it is safe to have a patient retain the spacer when he is satisfied with its function.