The Fate of Spacers in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

Authors

Miguel M Gomez, Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson UniversityFollow
Timothy L Tan, Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson UniversityFollow
Jorge Manrique, Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson UniversityFollow
Gregory K Deirmengian, Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson UniversityFollow
Javad Parvizi MD, Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson UniversityFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

9-16-2015

Comments

This article has been peer reviewed. It was published in: The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume.

Volume 97, Issue 18, 16 September 2015, Pages 1495-1502.

The published version is available at DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00958

Copyright © 2015 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Two-stage exchange arthroplasty remains the preferred method to treat periprosthetic joint infection. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical course of periprosthetic joint infection following resection arthroplasty and insertion of a spacer.

METHODS: Our institutional database was used to identify 504 cases of periprosthetic joint infection (326 knees and 178 hips) treated with resection arthroplasty and spacer insertion as part of a two-stage exchange arthroplasty. A review of the patient charts was performed to extract information relevant to the objectives of this study that included the details of the clinical course following resection arthroplasty.

RESULTS: The mean follow-up duration after initial spacer implantation was 56.2 months. Reimplantation occurred in the joints of 417 (82.7%) of 504 cases. Of these 417 cases, 329 (78.9%) had a minimum one-year follow-up, and 81.4% of these had successful treatment. The mean duration from resection arthroplasty to reimplantation was 4.2 months (range, 0.7 to 131.7 months). Sixty (11.9%) of the 504 joints required interim spacer exchange(s). Of the eighty-seven cases that did not undergo reimplantation, six (6.9%) required amputation, five (5.7%) underwent a Girdlestone procedure, four (4.6%) underwent arthrodesis, and seventy-two (82.8%) underwent spacer retention. Thirty-six patients died in the interstage period.

CONCLUSIONS: The commonly held belief that two-stage exchange arthroplasty carries a high success rate for the eradication of periprosthetic joint infection may need to be reexamined. A considerable number of patients undergoing the first stage of a two-stage procedure do not undergo a subsequent reimplantation for a variety of reasons or require an additional spacer exchange in the interim. Reports on the success of two-stage exchange should account for the mortality of these patients and for patients who never undergo reimplantation.

Recommended Citation

Gomez, Miguel M; Tan, Timothy L; Manrique, Jorge; Deirmengian, Gregory K; and Parvizi, Javad MD, "The Fate of Spacers in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection." (2015). Rothman Institute Faculty Papers. Paper 66.
https://jdc.jefferson.edu/rothman_institute/66