Administration of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) reduces the risk of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) following primary total hip (THA) and knee (TKA) arthroplasty. The optimal type of antibiotic used, and duration of prophylaxis are subject to debate. We compared the risk of revision surgery for PJI in the first year following THA and TKA by AP regimen. A national survey collecting information on hospital-level AP regimen policy was conducted across the Netherlands and linked to data from the LROI arthroplasty registry for 2011–2015. PJI status was defined using the surgical indication reported at revision by surgeons in the registry form. Restricted cubic splines Poisson model adjusted for hospital clustering were used to conduct the comparisons on 130,712 THAs and 111,467 TKAs performed across 99 institutions. These included 399 THAs and 303 TKAs revised for an indication of PJI. Multiple shot of Cefazolin (MCZ), of cefuroxime (MCX) and single shot of Cefazolin (SCZ) were respectively administrated to 87%, 4% and 9% of patients. For THA, the rates of revision for PJI were respectively 31/10,000 person-years 95%CI[28, 35], 39[25, 59] and 23[15, 34] in the groups which received MCZ, MCX and SCZ; respectively, the rates for TKA were 27[24, 31], 40[24, 62] and 24[16, 36]. No evidence of difference between AP regimens was found in the unadjusted and adjusted model (age, gender, BMI and ASA grade). Further work is advocated to confirm whether there is an association between AP regimen collected at patient-level and the risk of subsequent revision for PJI.
Joint replacement is a highly effective intervention to treat osteoarthritis of the hip, relieving pain and improving mobility and quality of life.(1) Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication after arthroplasty. Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention are treatment of first choice in case of early infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA).(2) In case of persisting infection, one- or two-stage revision needs to be performed.(3) The use of different kinds of spacers has been widely debated in the past years.(4) The aim of this study was to determine which type of spacer should be used during the interval of two-stage revision of an infected THA. A search term with Boolean operators was constructed. We extracted all information regarding study and patient characteristics and baseline clinical and laboratory findings. Data regarding type of spacer and antibiotics used, timing of second stage surgery, tissue culture results, postoperative regimen, functional outcome and patient satisfaction were extracted. A total of twenty-six studies met our inclusion criteria and were included for data analysis. Ten studies described various preformed spacers, six studies described functional spacers and eleven studies described custom made spacers. See Table 1 for results. Research should focus on finding the preferred type of treatment and type of spacer to combine a high success rate of infection treatment with a good functional and patient reported outcome. There is a need for a prospective study evaluating patient satisfaction and functional outcome after two-stage revision THA comparing various spacers. Secondly, research should focus on the optimal timing of the second stage procedure. Functional spacers achieve a comparable rate of infection eradication in the treatment of periprosthetic hip joint infections as compared to preformed spacers. There is insufficient evidence concerning rehabilitation and functional outcome after two-stage revisionTHA to advocate or discourage the use of either kind of interval spacer.
