Real Component Spacers for Two-Stage Exchange Demonstrate Low Bacterial Colonization

IF 1.5 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS Arthroplasty Today Pub Date : 2025-02-20 DOI:10.1016/j.artd.2025.101633
Logan E. Finger MD, Alan E. Wilson MD, Brandon K. Couch MD, Alexander P. Hoffman MD, Confidence Njoku-Austin BS, Brian A. Klatt MD, Michael J. O’Malley MD, Johannes F. Plate MD, PhD
{"title":"Real Component Spacers for Two-Stage Exchange Demonstrate Low Bacterial Colonization","authors":"Logan E. Finger MD,&nbsp;Alan E. Wilson MD,&nbsp;Brandon K. Couch MD,&nbsp;Alexander P. Hoffman MD,&nbsp;Confidence Njoku-Austin BS,&nbsp;Brian A. Klatt MD,&nbsp;Michael J. O’Malley MD,&nbsp;Johannes F. Plate MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.artd.2025.101633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Patients undergoing two-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with real component spacers (RC) benefit from improved function. While RCs have similar reinfection rates compared to other spacer types, concerns exist regarding the potential for bacterial colonization and biofilm formation on the RC metal components.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patients who completed two-stage exchange arthroplasty for treatment of Musculoskeletal Infection Society-defined hip or knee PJI were included and explanted spacer components were sent for sonication fluid culture (SFC). Medical records were reviewed for demographics, laboratory values, culture results, and clinical outcome data including 90-day reoperations and all-cause revisions.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 112 patients (57 hips and 64 knees) were included. Sixty (49.6%) patients received an articulating cement spacer (AC), 35 (28.9%) received an RC, and 26 (21.5%) received a static spacer (SS). No positive SFCs were identified with RC compared to 18.3% with AC and 11.5% with SS (<em>P</em> = .01). The number of positive tissue cultures was similar (RC 8.6%, AC 1.7%, SS 3.8%; <em>P</em> = .18). No patients who received an RC required repeat debridement within 90 days, while 11.8% with AC and 4.5% with SS required repeat debridement (<em>P</em> = .14). The difference in the rate of all-cause revision and revision due to recurrent infection among the 3 groups was found to be similar (<em>P</em> = .43 and <em>P</em> = .50, respectively).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>RC showed fewer SFCs when compared to AC and SS, though there was no significant difference in positive tissue cultures, reoperation within 90 days, all-cause revision, or revision due to recurrent infection among the groups.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37940,"journal":{"name":"Arthroplasty Today","volume":"32 ","pages":"Article 101633"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroplasty Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352344125000202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Patients undergoing two-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with real component spacers (RC) benefit from improved function. While RCs have similar reinfection rates compared to other spacer types, concerns exist regarding the potential for bacterial colonization and biofilm formation on the RC metal components.

Methods

Patients who completed two-stage exchange arthroplasty for treatment of Musculoskeletal Infection Society-defined hip or knee PJI were included and explanted spacer components were sent for sonication fluid culture (SFC). Medical records were reviewed for demographics, laboratory values, culture results, and clinical outcome data including 90-day reoperations and all-cause revisions.

Results

A total of 112 patients (57 hips and 64 knees) were included. Sixty (49.6%) patients received an articulating cement spacer (AC), 35 (28.9%) received an RC, and 26 (21.5%) received a static spacer (SS). No positive SFCs were identified with RC compared to 18.3% with AC and 11.5% with SS (P = .01). The number of positive tissue cultures was similar (RC 8.6%, AC 1.7%, SS 3.8%; P = .18). No patients who received an RC required repeat debridement within 90 days, while 11.8% with AC and 4.5% with SS required repeat debridement (P = .14). The difference in the rate of all-cause revision and revision due to recurrent infection among the 3 groups was found to be similar (P = .43 and P = .50, respectively).

Conclusions

RC showed fewer SFCs when compared to AC and SS, though there was no significant difference in positive tissue cultures, reoperation within 90 days, all-cause revision, or revision due to recurrent infection among the groups.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
相关文献
Controversies in Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis
IF 1.8 4区 医学Orthopedic Clinics of North AmericaPub Date : 2006-04-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.ocl.2005.09.003
Randall T. Loder MD
Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis: Diagnosis and Management.
IF 4 3区 医学American family physicianPub Date : 2017-06-15 DOI:
David M Peck, Lisa M Voss, Tyler T Voss
Controversies in management of slipped capital femoral epiphysis.
IF 1.9 World Journal of OrthopedicsPub Date : 2016-02-18 DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v7.i2.78
A. Johari, R. Pandey
来源期刊
Arthroplasty Today
Arthroplasty Today Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
258
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊介绍: Arthroplasty Today is a companion journal to the Journal of Arthroplasty. The journal Arthroplasty Today brings together the clinical and scientific foundations for joint replacement of the hip and knee in an open-access, online format. Arthroplasty Today solicits manuscripts of the highest quality from all areas of scientific endeavor that relate to joint replacement or the treatment of its complications, including those dealing with patient outcomes, economic and policy issues, prosthetic design, biomechanics, biomaterials, and biologic response to arthroplasty. The journal focuses on case reports. It is the purpose of Arthroplasty Today to present material to practicing orthopaedic surgeons that will keep them abreast of developments in the field, prove useful in the care of patients, and aid in understanding the scientific foundation of this subspecialty area of joint replacement. The international members of the Editorial Board provide a worldwide perspective for the journal''s area of interest. Their participation ensures that each issue of Arthroplasty Today provides the reader with timely, peer-reviewed articles of the highest quality.
期刊最新文献
Outcomes After Patellofemoral Arthroplasty With the Arthrex iBalance—A Third Generation Implant The Prediction of Venous Thromboembolism Using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Lower Extremity Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review Total Hip Arthroplasty After Gunshot-Related Hip Injuries: Case Series and Review of Literature Abdominal Pannus Should Not Dictate Surgical Approach in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty State Healthcare Regulations and Total Knee Arthroplasty Prices Across the United States
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1