• Moritz Mederake, Ulf Krister Hofmann, and Bernd Fink.
• Department of Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, BG Klinik, University of Tübingen, Schnarrenbergstraße 95, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. m.mederake@web.de.
• Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023 Aug 1; 143 (8): 539554035395-5403.

IntroductionIn septic two-stage revision surgery, success depends on numerous factors. Key steps are the procedure of ex- and reimplantation and the choice of spacer in the interim phase. The latter is still a matter of debate. Recently, we showed the microbial non-inferiority of a spacer technique using prosthetic cemented implants with an individualized antibiotic mixture in the cement applying a mechanically inferior cementation method. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical results of these spacers in view of either an endofemoral or a transfemoral procedure.Materials And MethodsOur collective consisted of 86 patients (45 endofemoral and 41 transfemoral procedures). The collective was analyzed with respect to complications, reinfection rate and clinical status at the end of the interim phase. Results of an endofemoral and transfemoral approach were compared.ResultsWith a median Staffelstein-Score of 60 (range 31-81) at the end of the interim phase, the first clinical results are promising. The reinfection-free rate after a median follow-up of 50 months was 90%. Spacer-related complications occurred in 8% of the total collective. Comparing the endo- and transfemoral procedure, there were no statistical differences in complications or regarding the clinical and infectiological outcome.ConclusionsIn this study, we were able to show good clinical results for the presented spacer technique. With no relevant difference in outcome, the decision for an endofemoral or transfemoral technique can be based on technical deliberations. Further prospective comparative studies are necessary to show the clinical benefit of this procedure.© 2023. The Author(s).

22 keywords...

hide…