scholarly journals Management of Severe Proximal Femur Bone Loss With a Modular Articulating Antibiotic Spacer

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 215145931984739
Author(s):  
Wesley Mayes ◽  
Paul K. Edwards ◽  
Simon C. Mears

Introduction: Management of periprosthetic infection in total hip arthroplasties is challenging, especially when there is severe loss of proximal femoral bone stock. When a 2-stage approach is used, either a static or an articulating spacer may be considered. Static spacers leave the patient with a flail leg, which can be very difficult with massive bone loss. The purpose of this study is to report a novel technique for articulating antibiotic spacers and report our results. Materials and Methods: We describe a technique for an articulating hip spacer in the setting of a large amount of proximal femoral bone loss using a locked intramedullary nail, modular femoral body, and an all-polyethylene constrained acetabular component. This technique allowed for mobilization of the patient without a flail leg. Four patients underwent 2-stage reconstruction, and the case series is reported here. Results: No complications occurred due to the spacer, and in all cases, a second reconstruction was later carried out after treatment with intravenous antibiotics. Three of 4 patients did well after 2-stage reconstruction, with 1 patient ultimately requiring an amputation. Discussion: We feel this technique improves upon previously reported large spacers due to the stability and maintenance of leg length. Conclusion: This technique offers a modular solution to address massive bone loss of the proximal femur in the face of periprosthetic joint infection.

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Quayle ◽  
A. Barakat ◽  
A. Klasan ◽  
A. Mittal ◽  
G. Chan ◽  
...  

Abstract Background There is little evidence on techniques for management of peri-prosthetic infection (PJI) in the context of severe proximal femoral bone loss. Custom-made articulating spacers (CUMARS) utilising cemented femoral stems as spacers was described providing better bone support and longer survival compared to conventional articulating spacers. We retrospectively report our experience managing PJI by adaptation of this technique using long cemented femoral stems where bone loss precludes use of standard stems. Methods Patients undergoing 1st stage revision for infected primary and revision THA using a cemented long stem (> 205 mm) and standard all-polyethylene acetabulum between 2011 and 2018 were identified. After excluding other causes of revision (fractures or aseptic loosening), Twenty-one patients remained out of total 721 revisions. Medical records were assessed for demographics, initial microbiological and operative treatment, complications, eradication of infection and subsequent operations. 2nd stage revision was undertaken in the presence of pain or subsidence. Results Twenty-one patients underwent 1st stage revision with a cemented long femoral stem. Mean follow up was 3.9 years (range 1.7–7.2). Infection was eradicated in 15 (71.4%) patients. Two patients (9.5%) required repeat 1st stage and subsequently cleared their infection. Three patients (14.3%) had chronic infection and are on long term suppressive antibiotics. One patient (4.8%) was lost to follow up before 2 years. Complications occurred in seven patients (33%) during or after 1st stage revision. Where infection was cleared, 2nd stage revision was undertaken in 12 patients (76.5%) at average of 9 months post 1st stage. Five (23.8%) CUMARS constructs remained in-situ at an average of 3.8 years post-op (range 2.6–5.1). Conclusions Our technique can be used in the most taxing of reconstructive scenarios allowing mobility, local antibiotic delivery, maintenance of leg length and preserves bone and soft tissue, factors not afforded by alternative spacer options.


2019 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Alec S. Kellish ◽  
Michael A. Luciani ◽  
Joseph Legato ◽  
Christina J. Gutowski

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Kaláb ◽  
Jan Karkoška ◽  
Milan Kamínek ◽  
Eva Matějková ◽  
Vladimír Lonský

2016 ◽  
Vol 136 (8) ◽  
pp. 1077-1083 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arne Streitbuerger ◽  
Jendrik Hardes ◽  
Georg Gosheger ◽  
Ralf Dieckmann ◽  
Steffen Hoell

The Knee ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.S.J. Nickinson ◽  
T.N. Board ◽  
A.K. Gambhir ◽  
M.L. Porter ◽  
P.R. Kay

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 64-71
Author(s):  
Frank S Fröschen ◽  
Thomas M Randau ◽  
Gunnar T R Hischebeth ◽  
Nadine Gravius ◽  
Dieter C Wirtz ◽  
...  

Background: Failed reconstruction in cases of severe acetabular bone loss, with or without pelvic discontinuity, in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) remains a great challenge in orthopaedic surgery. The aim of this study was to describe the outcome of a “second” rTHA with “custom-made acetabular components (CMACs)” after a previously failed reconstruction with CMACs. Methods: 4 patients with severe acetabular bone loss (Paprosky Type IIIB), who required a second rTHA after a previously failed reconstruction with CMAC, due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI), were included in our retrospective study. All prostheses had been constructed on the basis of thin-layer computed-tomography scans of the pelvis. The second rTHA was considered unsuccessful in the event of PJI or aseptic loosening (AL) with need for renewed CMAC explantation. Results: The treatment success rate after second rTHA with a CMAC was 50% (2 of 4). In the successful cases, the visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Harris Hip Score (HHS) after the second rTHA (VAS range 2–4; HHS range 45–58 points) did not differ from those after the first rTHA, before onset of symptoms (VAS: range 2–4; HHS: range 47–55 points). In the failed cases, the second CMACs needed to be explanted due to PJI, with renewed detection of previous pathogens. Patients with treatment failure of the second CMAC had required a higher number of revision surgeries after explantation of the first CMAC than patients with a successful outcome. Conclusions: In patients with severe acetabular bone loss and previously failed rTHA with CMACs, repeat rTHA with a CMAC may be a solid treatment option for patients with an “uncomplicated” multi-stage procedure, i.e., without persisting infection after explantation of the original CMAC. While the outcome in terms of clinical function does not appear negatively affected by such a “second attempt,” the complication rate and risk of reinfection, nonetheless, is high.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document