Acetabular spacers in 2-stage hip revision: is it worth it? A single-centre retrospective study

Hip Int. 2017 Mar 31;27(2):187-192. doi: 10.5301/hipint.5000446. Epub 2016 Nov 25.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this work is to evaluate an acetabular antibiotic loaded bone cement spacer in 2-stage revision surgery as a potential approach able to reduce complications during the inter-stage period (i.e. dislocation, acetabular wear), as well as simplify 2-stage hip revision surgery and improve hip biomechanics.

Methods: We performed a retrospective comparative study and evaluated clinical, radiological and surgical data of 71 patients affected by periprosthetic hip infection who were treated with 2-stage exchange. 31 patients were treated using an acetabular spacer in addition to the femoral (group A) while 40 underwent a standard revision surgery (femoral spacer only, group B).

Results: Mean time of surgery for the first stage was 148 ± 59 minutes and 142 ± 45 minutes for group A and B respectively; we noted a statistically significant reduction (26 min, p = 0.015) in the same parameter for the second stage (83 ± 35 minutes for group A and 109 ± 36 minutes for group B). We observed the following interstage complications: 5 femoral spacer dislocations (1 for group A and 4 for group B); 1 spacer fracture (group B), 1 spacer fracture (group A), 2 periprosthetic fractures (group B) and 2 patients with acetabular spacer instability (group B). Additionally, we observed a significant improvement in leg length restoration for group A (p = 0.03).

Conclusions: Our data show that the acetabular spacer technique is able to reduce the interstage complication rate and allow improved hip biomechanics restoration.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Evaluation Study

MeSH terms

  • Acetabulum / surgery
  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Anti-Bacterial Agents / pharmacology*
  • Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip / adverse effects*
  • Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip / methods
  • Bone Cements / pharmacology*
  • Cohort Studies
  • Drug Implants
  • Female
  • Follow-Up Studies
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Pain Measurement
  • Periprosthetic Fractures / diagnostic imaging
  • Periprosthetic Fractures / surgery*
  • Prosthesis Failure
  • Prosthesis-Related Infections / diagnosis
  • Prosthesis-Related Infections / surgery*
  • Recovery of Function
  • Reoperation / methods*
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Risk Assessment
  • Treatment Outcome

Substances

  • Anti-Bacterial Agents
  • Bone Cements
  • Drug Implants