The choice of a spacer at the first stage of treatment for late deep periprosthetic hip joint infection

Abstract. Introduction Periprosthetic infection in hip arthroplasty is a social and economic problem. Its main reason is multidrug resistance of microorganisms. Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of the first stage in two-stage revision arthroplasty for the treatment of deep periprosthetic infe...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stanislav A. Linnik, Gennady E. Afinogenov, Anna G. Afinogenova, Guram E. Kvinikadze, Dmitry V. Kravtsov, Nikolai M. Kliushin, Dmitry Yu. Maday, Valeriy M. Khaidarov, Giorgi Karagezov, Alimbek A. Vorokov
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
RU
Publicado: Russian Ilizarov Scientific Center for Restorative Traumatology and Orthopaedics 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/29dbedafeeba4bc2bc557ef6804ecf10
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:29dbedafeeba4bc2bc557ef6804ecf10
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:29dbedafeeba4bc2bc557ef6804ecf102021-11-15T09:55:35ZThe choice of a spacer at the first stage of treatment for late deep periprosthetic hip joint infection10.18019/1028-4427-2021-27-5-548-5541028-44272542-131Xhttps://doaj.org/article/29dbedafeeba4bc2bc557ef6804ecf102021-10-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doaj.org/toc/1028-4427https://doaj.org/toc/2542-131XAbstract. Introduction Periprosthetic infection in hip arthroplasty is a social and economic problem. Its main reason is multidrug resistance of microorganisms. Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of the first stage in two-stage revision arthroplasty for the treatment of deep periprosthetic infection of the hip joint by improving the constructive and antibacterial features of spacers. Materials and methods The treatment results of 127 patients with late deep periprosthetic hip joint infection who underwent two-stage revision arthroplasty in the period from 2015 to 2019 were analyzed. In the first group, 42 patients were fitted with a two-component (total) spacer based on the developed antimicrobial composition of bone cement with gentamicin, antiseptics and polymer (patent RU 191236). In the second group, a two-component spacer (patent RU 174697) based on conventional bone cement with gentamicin was implanted in 43 patients; the third group of 42 patients had a preformed spacer. Results A bactericidal and antiadhesive, nontoxic composition based on bone cement with gentamicin with antiseptics poviargol, dioxidine and high molecular weight polyvinylpyrrolidone with a prolonged action for 348 days against gentamicin-resistant staphylococci has been developed. All patients underwent the first stage of hip arthroplasty with removal of the implant and installation of a spacer. Recurrence of periprosthetic infection was observed in 1 (2.3 %) patient of the first group, in 5 (11.6 %) in the second and in 6 (14.2 %) patients of the third group. Non-infectious complications such as spacer dislocation and instability were observed in 12 cases, one case (2.3 %) in the first, 2 (4.6 %) in the second and 9 (21.4 %) in the third group. The average time from the first stage of treatment to the second stage of re-implantation was 7.5 months (range, 4–13 months). Discussion According to the literature, the introduction of new antibiotics into the bone cement with gentamicin does not increase the antimicrobial action of the spacer, especially against antibiotic-resistant isolates, and the use of a preformed spacer contributes to an increase in the number of non-infectious complications. Antiseptics with different mechanisms of action are able to act on antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and the polymer can prolong this effect. Conclusions Creation of two-component spacers based on bone cement with gentamicin using antiseptics with different mechanisms of action and polymer promotes long-term bactericidal action of the spacer, which leads to effective sanation of the joint area, reducing non-infectious complications.Stanislav A. LinnikGennady E. AfinogenovAnna G. AfinogenovaGuram E. KvinikadzeDmitry V. KravtsovNikolai M. KliushinDmitry Yu. MadayValeriy M. KhaidarovGiorgi KaragezovAlimbek A. VorokovRussian Ilizarov Scientific Center for Restorative Traumatology and Orthopaedicsarticlehip jointperiprosthetic infectionspacerantimicrobial compositiontwo-stage revision endoprosthesis replacementOrthopedic surgeryRD701-811ENRUГений oртопедии, Vol 27, Iss 5, Pp 548-554 (2021)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
RU
topic hip joint
periprosthetic infection
spacer
antimicrobial composition
two-stage revision endoprosthesis replacement
Orthopedic surgery
RD701-811
spellingShingle hip joint
periprosthetic infection
spacer
antimicrobial composition
two-stage revision endoprosthesis replacement
Orthopedic surgery
RD701-811
Stanislav A. Linnik
Gennady E. Afinogenov
Anna G. Afinogenova
Guram E. Kvinikadze
Dmitry V. Kravtsov
Nikolai M. Kliushin
Dmitry Yu. Maday
Valeriy M. Khaidarov
Giorgi Karagezov
Alimbek A. Vorokov
The choice of a spacer at the first stage of treatment for late deep periprosthetic hip joint infection
description Abstract. Introduction Periprosthetic infection in hip arthroplasty is a social and economic problem. Its main reason is multidrug resistance of microorganisms. Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of the first stage in two-stage revision arthroplasty for the treatment of deep periprosthetic infection of the hip joint by improving the constructive and antibacterial features of spacers. Materials and methods The treatment results of 127 patients with late deep periprosthetic hip joint infection who underwent two-stage revision arthroplasty in the period from 2015 to 2019 were analyzed. In the first group, 42 patients were fitted with a two-component (total) spacer based on the developed antimicrobial composition of bone cement with gentamicin, antiseptics and polymer (patent RU 191236). In the second group, a two-component spacer (patent RU 174697) based on conventional bone cement with gentamicin was implanted in 43 patients; the third group of 42 patients had a preformed spacer. Results A bactericidal and antiadhesive, nontoxic composition based on bone cement with gentamicin with antiseptics poviargol, dioxidine and high molecular weight polyvinylpyrrolidone with a prolonged action for 348 days against gentamicin-resistant staphylococci has been developed. All patients underwent the first stage of hip arthroplasty with removal of the implant and installation of a spacer. Recurrence of periprosthetic infection was observed in 1 (2.3 %) patient of the first group, in 5 (11.6 %) in the second and in 6 (14.2 %) patients of the third group. Non-infectious complications such as spacer dislocation and instability were observed in 12 cases, one case (2.3 %) in the first, 2 (4.6 %) in the second and 9 (21.4 %) in the third group. The average time from the first stage of treatment to the second stage of re-implantation was 7.5 months (range, 4–13 months). Discussion According to the literature, the introduction of new antibiotics into the bone cement with gentamicin does not increase the antimicrobial action of the spacer, especially against antibiotic-resistant isolates, and the use of a preformed spacer contributes to an increase in the number of non-infectious complications. Antiseptics with different mechanisms of action are able to act on antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and the polymer can prolong this effect. Conclusions Creation of two-component spacers based on bone cement with gentamicin using antiseptics with different mechanisms of action and polymer promotes long-term bactericidal action of the spacer, which leads to effective sanation of the joint area, reducing non-infectious complications.
format article
author Stanislav A. Linnik
Gennady E. Afinogenov
Anna G. Afinogenova
Guram E. Kvinikadze
Dmitry V. Kravtsov
Nikolai M. Kliushin
Dmitry Yu. Maday
Valeriy M. Khaidarov
Giorgi Karagezov
Alimbek A. Vorokov
author_facet Stanislav A. Linnik
Gennady E. Afinogenov
Anna G. Afinogenova
Guram E. Kvinikadze
Dmitry V. Kravtsov
Nikolai M. Kliushin
Dmitry Yu. Maday
Valeriy M. Khaidarov
Giorgi Karagezov
Alimbek A. Vorokov
author_sort Stanislav A. Linnik
title The choice of a spacer at the first stage of treatment for late deep periprosthetic hip joint infection
title_short The choice of a spacer at the first stage of treatment for late deep periprosthetic hip joint infection
title_full The choice of a spacer at the first stage of treatment for late deep periprosthetic hip joint infection
title_fullStr The choice of a spacer at the first stage of treatment for late deep periprosthetic hip joint infection
title_full_unstemmed The choice of a spacer at the first stage of treatment for late deep periprosthetic hip joint infection
title_sort choice of a spacer at the first stage of treatment for late deep periprosthetic hip joint infection
publisher Russian Ilizarov Scientific Center for Restorative Traumatology and Orthopaedics
publishDate 2021
url https://doaj.org/article/29dbedafeeba4bc2bc557ef6804ecf10
work_keys_str_mv AT stanislavalinnik thechoiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
AT gennadyeafinogenov thechoiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
AT annagafinogenova thechoiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
AT guramekvinikadze thechoiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
AT dmitryvkravtsov thechoiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
AT nikolaimkliushin thechoiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
AT dmitryyumaday thechoiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
AT valeriymkhaidarov thechoiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
AT giorgikaragezov thechoiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
AT alimbekavorokov thechoiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
AT stanislavalinnik choiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
AT gennadyeafinogenov choiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
AT annagafinogenova choiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
AT guramekvinikadze choiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
AT dmitryvkravtsov choiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
AT nikolaimkliushin choiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
AT dmitryyumaday choiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
AT valeriymkhaidarov choiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
AT giorgikaragezov choiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
AT alimbekavorokov choiceofaspaceratthefirststageoftreatmentforlatedeepperiprosthetichipjointinfection
_version_ 1718428422389104640