The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American) 86:1989-1997 (2004)
© 2004 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
Two-Stage Revision Hip Arthroplasty for Infection: Comparison Between the Interim Use of Antibiotic-Loaded Cement Beads and a Spacer Prosthesis
Pang-Hsin Hsieh, MD1,
Chun-Hsiung Shih, MD1,
Yu-Han Chang, MD1,
Mel S. Lee, MD1,
Hsin-Nung Shih, MD1 and
Wen-E Yang, MD1
1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, No. 5,
Fu-Hsing Street 333, Kweishian, Taoyuan, Taiwan. E-mail address for P.-H.
Hsieh:
hsiehph{at}adm.cgmh.org.tw
Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chang
Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, and the Department of Orthopedics, Chung Shan
Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their
research or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or
other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a
commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or
direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational
institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the
authors are affiliated or associated.
Background: A two-stage revision is a well-accepted method for the
treatment of a deep infection of a hip with a joint implant. In the present
study, the results associated with the interim use of antibiotic-loaded cement
beads were compared with those associated with the interim use of an
antibiotic-loaded cement prosthesis.
Methods: One hundred and twenty-eight consecutive patients who were
managed with a two-stage revision hip arthroplasty for the treatment of an
infection were followed clinically and radiographically for an average of 4.9
years. Cement beads were implanted following resection arthroplasty in the
first seventy hips, and a custom cement prosthesis was implanted in the
subsequent fifty-eight hips.
Results: There was no evidence of recurrent infection in 122
patients (95.3%); the infection-free rates in both groups were similar. The
use of a spacer prosthesis was associated with a higher hip score, a shorter
hospital stay, and better walking capacity in the interim period; a decreased
operative time, less blood loss, and a lower transfusion requirement at the
time of reimplantation; and fewer postoperative dislocations.
Conclusions: The present study supports the safety and efficacy of
the routine use of an antibiotic-loaded cement prosthesis in the interim
between the stages of a two-stage revision procedure for the treatment of an
infection at the site of a hip arthroplasty.
Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, Level III-2
(retrospective cohort study). See Instructions to Authors for a complete
description of levels of evidence.

CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
Q. Cui, W. M. Mihalko, J. S. Shields, M. Ries, and K. J. Saleh
Antibiotic-Impregnated Cement Spacers for the Treatment of Infection Associated with Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
April 1, 2007;
89(4):
871 - 882.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. Kelm, T. Regitz, E. Schmitt, W. Jung, and K. Anagnostakos
In Vivo and In Vitro Studies of Antibiotic Release from and Bacterial Growth Inhibition by Antibiotic-Impregnated Polymethylmethacrylate Hip Spacers
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.,
January 1, 2006;
50(1):
332 - 335.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|