Um Kyu-Sub, Lee Joong-Won, Yoon Byung-Ho, Sung Yerl-Bo
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Hip Pelvis. 2020 Mar;32(1):26-34. doi: 10.5371/hp.2020.32.1.26. Epub 2020 Feb 26.
Currently, standard management of a peri-prosthetic infection is a two-stage revision precedure. However, removal of well-fixed cement is technically demanding and associated with numerous potential complications. For theses reasons, two-stage revision with preservation of the original femoral stem can be considered and several previous studies have achieved successful results. While most prior studies used cemented stems, the use of cementless stems during arthroplasty has been gradually increasing; this study aims to assess the comparative effectiveness of a two-stage revision of infected hip arthroplasties at preserving cemented and cementless stems.
Between December 2001 and February 2017, Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital treated 45 cases of deep infections following hip arthroplasty with a two stage revisional arthroplasty using antibiotics-loaded cement spacers. This approach was applied in an effort to preserve the previously implanted femoral stem. Of these 45 cases, 20 were followed-up for at least two years and included in this analysis. Perioperative clinical symptoms, radiological findings, function and complications during insertion of an antibiotics-loaded cement spacer were analyzed in this study.
Peri-prothetic infections were controlled in 19 of the 20 included cases. Clinical outcomes, as assessed using the Harris hip score, Western Ontario and McMaster University score, also improved. Importantly, similarly improved outcomes were achieved for both cemented and cementless femoral stems.
In cases of deep infection following hip arthroplasty, two-stage revision arthroplasty to preserve the previously implanted femoral stem (cemented or cementless) effectively controls infections and preserves joint function.
目前,人工关节周围感染的标准治疗方法是两阶段翻修手术。然而,取出固定良好的骨水泥在技术上要求较高,且伴有许多潜在并发症。由于这些原因,可以考虑保留原股骨柄的两阶段翻修手术,并且先前的一些研究已取得成功结果。虽然大多数先前的研究使用骨水泥型股骨柄,但在关节置换术中非骨水泥型股骨柄的使用已逐渐增加;本研究旨在评估感染性髋关节置换术两阶段翻修在保留骨水泥型和非骨水泥型股骨柄方面的相对有效性。
2001年12月至2017年2月期间,仁济大学桑格耶白医院对45例髋关节置换术后深部感染患者采用含抗生素骨水泥间隔物进行两阶段翻修置换术。采用这种方法是为了保留先前植入的股骨柄。在这45例患者中,20例至少随访了两年并纳入本分析。本研究分析了围手术期临床症状、影像学表现、功能以及植入含抗生素骨水泥间隔物期间的并发症。
纳入分析的20例患者中,19例人工关节周围感染得到控制。使用Harris髋关节评分、西安大略和麦克马斯特大学评分评估的临床结果也有所改善。重要的是,骨水泥型和非骨水泥型股骨柄均取得了类似的改善结果。
在髋关节置换术后深部感染的病例中,保留先前植入的股骨柄(骨水泥型或非骨水泥型)的两阶段翻修置换术可有效控制感染并保留关节功能。