Comparing the use of preformed vs hand-made antibiotic spacer cement in two stages revision of hip periprosthetic infection.

BACKGROUND

The number of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) is continuously increasing because of the increasing number of arthroprostheses performed every year. Two-stage revision, using antibiotic-loaded spacers, remains the gold standard for their treatment. The aim of our study is to compare the use of preformed vs hand-made spacers in hip arthroplasty infections evaluating infection eradication, bone loss and clinical/functional outcomes.

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2017 we performed a prospective nonrandomized study. We pooled 50 patients affected by infected hip joint replacements, and divided them in 2 groups, one receiving commercially preformed spacers and the other receiving hand-made spacers. The study endpoint was set at 12 months. Intra-operative and peri-operative complications, Harris Hip Score (HHS), Short Form 12 Health Survey, intra-operative and radiological evaluation of bone loss were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, T-test and Fisher Exact test.

RESULTS

We found a statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the two groups in favour of the VancogenX group for the following variables: surgical time, first and second stage intraoperative complication rates, infection eradication. Moreover, the preformed-spacers group had better results in the preservation of bone stock, even though the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our results support the use of preformed antibiotic spacers, even though more studies are needed.