The choice of a spacer at the first stage of treatment for late deep periprosthetic hip joint infection
Выбор спейсера на первом этапе лечения поздней глубокой перипротезной инфекции тазобедренного сустава
Abstract. Introduction Periprosthetic infection in hip arthroplasty is a social and economic problem. Its main reason is multidrug resistance of microorganisms. Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of the first stage in two-stage revision arthroplasty for the treatment of deep periprosthetic infection of the hip joint by improving the constructive and antibacterial features of spacers. Materials and methods The treatment results of 127 patients with late deep periprosthetic hip joint infection
... who underwent two-stage revision arthroplasty in the period from 2015 to 2019 were analyzed. In the first group, 42 patients were fitted with a two-component (total) spacer based on the developed antimicrobial composition of bone cement with gentamicin, antiseptics and polymer (patent RU 191236). In the second group, a two-component spacer (patent RU 174697) based on conventional bone cement with gentamicin was implanted in 43 patients; the third group of 42 patients had a preformed spacer. Results A bactericidal and antiadhesive, nontoxic composition based on bone cement with gentamicin with antiseptics poviargol, dioxidine and high molecular weight polyvinylpyrrolidone with a prolonged action for 348 days against gentamicin-resistant staphylococci has been developed. All patients underwent the first stage of hip arthroplasty with removal of the implant and installation of a spacer. Recurrence of periprosthetic infection was observed in 1 (2.3 %) patient of the first group, in 5 (11.6 %) in the second and in 6 (14.2 %) patients of the third group. Non-infectious complications such as spacer dislocation and instability were observed in 12 cases, one case (2.3 %) in the first, 2 (4.6 %) in the second and 9 (21.4 %) in the third group. The average time from the first stage of treatment to the second stage of re-implantation was 7.5 months (range, 4–13 months). Discussion According to the literature, the introduction of new antibiotics into the bone cement with gentamicin does not increase the antimicrobial action of the spacer, especially against antibiotic-resistant isolates, and the use of a preformed spacer contributes to an increase in the number of non-infectious complications. Antiseptics with different mechanisms of action are able to act on antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and the polymer can prolong this effect. Conclusions Creation of two-component spacers based on bone cement with gentamicin using antiseptics with different mechanisms of action and polymer promotes long-term bactericidal action of the spacer, which leads to effective sanation of the joint area, reducing non-infectious complications.