• Ewout S Veltman, Dirk Jan F Moojen, Mathias Glehr, and Rudolf W Poolman.
• Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Joint Research, OLVG, Amsterdam - The Netherlands.
• Hip Int. 2016 Jul 25; 26 (4): 319-26.

Background2-stage revision with the use of an antibiotic-loaded interval spacer is therapy of choice in late periprosthetic joint infection for most surgeons. For the spacer, either a prefabricated, functional articulating or custom-made spacer can be used. Little is known about which type of spacer provides optimal outcome after 2-stage revision. The aim of this study was to determine which type of spacer provides the best results, when used in 2-stage revision of an infected THA.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of the literature to analyse which type of interval spacer provides highest infection eradication rate and best functional outcome after a minimum 2 year follow-up. Exclusion criteria were follow-up of less than 2 years, single-stage revision, or 2-stage revision without use of a spacer.Results25 studies were included. Infection eradication rate was similar with rates of 96%, 93% and 95% for the prefabricated-, functional articulating- and custom-made spacers respectively. Functional outcome was scarcely described. Postoperative HHS was 81, 90 and 83 respectively.ConclusionsFunctional articulating spacers achieve a comparable rate of infection eradication in the treatment of periprosthetic hip joint infections as compared to preformed or custom-made antibiotic-loaded spacers. There is insufficient evidence concerning rehabilitation and functional outcome after 2-stage revision hip arthroplasty to advocate or discourage the use of either kind of interval spacer.

12 keywords...

hide…