Veltman Ewout S, Moojen Dirk Jan F, Poolman Rudolf W
Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam 1091AC, Netherlands.
Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam 1091AC, Netherlands.
World J Orthop. 2020 Dec 18;11(12):595-605. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v11.i12.595.
Two-stage revision arthroplasty with an antibiotic-loaded spacer is the treatment of choice in chronically infected total hip arthroplasties. Interval spacers can be functional articulating or prefabricated. Functional results of these spacers have scarcely been reported.
To compare retrospectively the patient reported outcome and infection eradication rate after two-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip with the use of a functional articulating or prefabricated spacer.
All patients with two-stage revision of a hip prosthesis at our hospital between 2003 and 2016 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into two groups; patients treated with a functional articulating spacer or with a prefabricated spacer. Patients completed the Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and the EQ-5D-3L (EQ-5D) and the EQ-5D quality of life thermometer (EQ-VAS) scores. Primary outcomes were patient reported outcome and infection eradication after two-stage revision. The results of both groups were compared to the patient acceptable symptom state for primary arthroplasty of the hip. Secondary outcomes were complications during spacer treatment and at final follow-up. Descriptive statistics, mean and range are used to represent the demographics of the patients. For numerical variables, students' -tests were used to assess the level of significance for differences between the groups, with 95% confidence intervals; for binary outcome, we used Fisher's exact test.
We consecutively treated 55 patients with a prefabricated spacer and 15 patients with a functional articulating spacer of the hip. The infection eradication rates for functional articulating and prefabricated spacers were 93% and 78%, respectively ( > 0.05). With respect to the functional outcome, the Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and its subscores (all < 0.01), the EQ-5D ( < 0.01) and the EQ-VAS scores ( < 0.05) were all significantly better for patients successfully treated with a functional articulating spacer. More patients in the functional articulating spacer group reached the patient acceptable symptom state for the HOOS pain, HOOS quality of life and EQ-VAS. The number of patients with a spacer dislocation was not significantly different for the functional articulating or prefabricated spacer group ( > 0.05). However, the number of dislocations per patient experiencing a dislocation was significantly higher for patients with a prefabricated spacer ( < 0.01).
Functional articulating spacers lead to improved patient reported functional outcome and less perioperative complications after two-stage revision arthroplasty of an infected total hip prosthesis, while maintaining a similar infection eradication rate compared to prefabricated spacers.
采用载抗生素间隔物的两阶段翻修关节成形术是治疗慢性感染性全髋关节置换术的首选方法。间隔物可分为功能性可活动型或预制型。关于这些间隔物的功能结果鲜有报道。
回顾性比较采用功能性可活动型或预制型间隔物进行髋关节两阶段翻修关节成形术后患者报告的结局及感染根除率。
本回顾性队列研究纳入了2003年至2016年间在我院接受髋关节假体两阶段翻修的所有患者。患者分为两组:接受功能性可活动型间隔物治疗的患者和接受预制型间隔物治疗的患者。患者完成髋关节骨关节炎结局评分、EQ-5D-3L(EQ-5D)及EQ-5D生活质量温度计(EQ-VAS)评分。主要结局为两阶段翻修术后患者报告的结局及感染根除情况。将两组结果与髋关节初次置换术的患者可接受症状状态进行比较。次要结局为间隔物治疗期间及最终随访时的并发症。采用描述性统计、均值和范围来表示患者的人口统计学特征。对于数值变量,采用学生t检验评估两组间差异的显著性水平,置信区间为95%;对于二元结局,采用Fisher精确检验。
我们连续治疗了55例采用预制型间隔物的髋关节患者和15例采用功能性可活动型间隔物的髋关节患者。功能性可活动型间隔物和预制型间隔物的感染根除率分别为93%和78%(P>0.05)。在功能结局方面,对于成功接受功能性可活动型间隔物治疗的患者,髋关节骨关节炎结局评分(HOOS)及其各子评分(均P<0.01)、EQ-5D(P<0.01)和EQ-VAS评分(P<0.0)均显著更好。功能性可活动型间隔物组中更多患者在HOOS疼痛、HOOS生活质量和EQ-VAS方面达到了患者可接受症状状态。功能性可活动型间隔物组和预制型间隔物组间隔物脱位患者数量无显著差异(P>0.05)。然而,预制型间隔物患者发生脱位的每位患者脱位次数显著更高(P<0.01)。
在感染性全髋关节假体两阶段翻修关节成形术后,功能性可活动型间隔物可改善患者报告的功能结局,减少围手术期并发症,同时与预制型间隔物相比保持相似的感染根除率。