Comparing the use of preformed vs hand-made antibiotic spacer cement in two stages revision of hip periprosthetic infection
The number of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) is continuously increasing because of the increasing number of arthroprostheses performed every year. Two-stage revision, using antibiotic-loaded spacers, remains the gold standard for their treatment. The aim of our study is to compare the use of...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma 2020-10, Vol.11 (Suppl 5), p.S772-S778 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | S778 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | Suppl 5 |
| container_start_page | S772 |
| container_title | Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma |
| container_volume | 11 |
| creator | Rollo, Giuseppe Logroscino, Giandomenico Stomeo, Daniele Cioffi, Raffaele Calvisi, Vittorio Meccariello, Luigi |
| description | The number of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) is continuously increasing because of the increasing number of arthroprostheses performed every year. Two-stage revision, using antibiotic-loaded spacers, remains the gold standard for their treatment. The aim of our study is to compare the use of preformed vs hand-made spacers in hip arthroplasty infections evaluating infection eradication, bone loss and clinical/functional outcomes.
From January 2010 to December 2017 we performed a prospective nonrandomized study. We pooled 50 patients affected by infected hip joint replacements, and divided them in 2 groups, one receiving commercially preformed spacers and the other receiving hand-made spacers. The study endpoint was set at 12 months. Intra-operative and peri-operative complications, Harris Hip Score (HHS), Short Form 12 Health Survey, intra-operative and radiological evaluation of bone loss were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, T-test and Fisher Exact test.
We found a statistically significant differences (p 0.05).
Our results support the use of preformed antibiotic spacers, even though more studies are needed. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jcot.2020.08.003 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7503155</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0976566220303647</els_id><sourcerecordid>2447839621</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3703-a0d375efe20028a9182ac27836f2615cba06d28b842490dc780154d471a6ef283</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UcGO0zAUtBArtir7AxyQj1wSnu3YcSSEhKplQVqJC3u2XOelddXYwU6LED-Po-6u4IIvPryZefNmCHnDoGbA1PtDfXBxrjlwqEHXAOIFWXHORCWaRr4kK-haVUml-DW5yfkA5UnFOqZfkWvBu66TslmR35s4Tjb5sKPzHukpI40DnRIOMY3Y03Omexv6arQ9Uhtmv_Vx9o7myTpM1OGIYaY-0PlnpHm2O8w04dlnH8OitPcTnTD5KcVcFixUHwZ0c5m_JleDPWa8efzX5OHz7ffNl-r-293Xzaf7yokWRGWhF63EATkA17ZcwK3jrRZq4IpJt7Wgeq63uuFNB71rNTDZ9E3LrMKBa7EmHy-602lbbnLFcbJHMyU_2vTLROvNv5Pg92YXz6aVIJiUReDdo0CKP06YZzP67PB4tAHjKRveNMVOp0r6a8IvUFcOziXG5zUMzFKcOZilOLMUZ0CbUlwhvf3b4DPlqaYC-HABYInp7DGZ7DwGh71PJUvTR_8__T-z1awc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2447839621</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing the use of preformed vs hand-made antibiotic spacer cement in two stages revision of hip periprosthetic infection</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Rollo, Giuseppe ; Logroscino, Giandomenico ; Stomeo, Daniele ; Cioffi, Raffaele ; Calvisi, Vittorio ; Meccariello, Luigi</creator><creatorcontrib>Rollo, Giuseppe ; Logroscino, Giandomenico ; Stomeo, Daniele ; Cioffi, Raffaele ; Calvisi, Vittorio ; Meccariello, Luigi</creatorcontrib><description>The number of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) is continuously increasing because of the increasing number of arthroprostheses performed every year. Two-stage revision, using antibiotic-loaded spacers, remains the gold standard for their treatment. The aim of our study is to compare the use of preformed vs hand-made spacers in hip arthroplasty infections evaluating infection eradication, bone loss and clinical/functional outcomes.
From January 2010 to December 2017 we performed a prospective nonrandomized study. We pooled 50 patients affected by infected hip joint replacements, and divided them in 2 groups, one receiving commercially preformed spacers and the other receiving hand-made spacers. The study endpoint was set at 12 months. Intra-operative and peri-operative complications, Harris Hip Score (HHS), Short Form 12 Health Survey, intra-operative and radiological evaluation of bone loss were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, T-test and Fisher Exact test.
We found a statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the two groups in favour of the VancogenX group for the following variables: surgical time, first and second stage intraoperative complication rates, infection eradication. Moreover, the preformed-spacers group had better results in the preservation of bone stock, even though the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
Our results support the use of preformed antibiotic spacers, even though more studies are needed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0976-5662</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2213-3445</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2020.08.003</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32999554</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>India: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Antibiotic ; ARTHROPLASTY ; Cement ; Hip ; Peri-prosthetic infection ; Spacers</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2020-10, Vol.11 (Suppl 5), p.S772-S778</ispartof><rights>2020 Delhi Orthopedic Association</rights><rights>2020 Delhi Orthopedic Association. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2020 Delhi Orthopedic Association. All rights reserved. 2020 Delhi Orthopedic Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3703-a0d375efe20028a9182ac27836f2615cba06d28b842490dc780154d471a6ef283</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3703-a0d375efe20028a9182ac27836f2615cba06d28b842490dc780154d471a6ef283</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3669-189X ; 0000-0003-1301-5343</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7503155/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2020.08.003$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,3548,27923,27924,45994,53790,53792</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32999554$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rollo, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Logroscino, Giandomenico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stomeo, Daniele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cioffi, Raffaele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Calvisi, Vittorio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meccariello, Luigi</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing the use of preformed vs hand-made antibiotic spacer cement in two stages revision of hip periprosthetic infection</title><title>Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma</title><addtitle>J Clin Orthop Trauma</addtitle><description>The number of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) is continuously increasing because of the increasing number of arthroprostheses performed every year. Two-stage revision, using antibiotic-loaded spacers, remains the gold standard for their treatment. The aim of our study is to compare the use of preformed vs hand-made spacers in hip arthroplasty infections evaluating infection eradication, bone loss and clinical/functional outcomes.
From January 2010 to December 2017 we performed a prospective nonrandomized study. We pooled 50 patients affected by infected hip joint replacements, and divided them in 2 groups, one receiving commercially preformed spacers and the other receiving hand-made spacers. The study endpoint was set at 12 months. Intra-operative and peri-operative complications, Harris Hip Score (HHS), Short Form 12 Health Survey, intra-operative and radiological evaluation of bone loss were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, T-test and Fisher Exact test.
We found a statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the two groups in favour of the VancogenX group for the following variables: surgical time, first and second stage intraoperative complication rates, infection eradication. Moreover, the preformed-spacers group had better results in the preservation of bone stock, even though the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
Our results support the use of preformed antibiotic spacers, even though more studies are needed.</description><subject>Antibiotic</subject><subject>ARTHROPLASTY</subject><subject>Cement</subject><subject>Hip</subject><subject>Peri-prosthetic infection</subject><subject>Spacers</subject><issn>0976-5662</issn><issn>2213-3445</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9UcGO0zAUtBArtir7AxyQj1wSnu3YcSSEhKplQVqJC3u2XOelddXYwU6LED-Po-6u4IIvPryZefNmCHnDoGbA1PtDfXBxrjlwqEHXAOIFWXHORCWaRr4kK-haVUml-DW5yfkA5UnFOqZfkWvBu66TslmR35s4Tjb5sKPzHukpI40DnRIOMY3Y03Omexv6arQ9Uhtmv_Vx9o7myTpM1OGIYaY-0PlnpHm2O8w04dlnH8OitPcTnTD5KcVcFixUHwZ0c5m_JleDPWa8efzX5OHz7ffNl-r-293Xzaf7yokWRGWhF63EATkA17ZcwK3jrRZq4IpJt7Wgeq63uuFNB71rNTDZ9E3LrMKBa7EmHy-602lbbnLFcbJHMyU_2vTLROvNv5Pg92YXz6aVIJiUReDdo0CKP06YZzP67PB4tAHjKRveNMVOp0r6a8IvUFcOziXG5zUMzFKcOZilOLMUZ0CbUlwhvf3b4DPlqaYC-HABYInp7DGZ7DwGh71PJUvTR_8__T-z1awc</recordid><startdate>20201001</startdate><enddate>20201001</enddate><creator>Rollo, Giuseppe</creator><creator>Logroscino, Giandomenico</creator><creator>Stomeo, Daniele</creator><creator>Cioffi, Raffaele</creator><creator>Calvisi, Vittorio</creator><creator>Meccariello, Luigi</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3669-189X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1301-5343</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201001</creationdate><title>Comparing the use of preformed vs hand-made antibiotic spacer cement in two stages revision of hip periprosthetic infection</title><author>Rollo, Giuseppe ; Logroscino, Giandomenico ; Stomeo, Daniele ; Cioffi, Raffaele ; Calvisi, Vittorio ; Meccariello, Luigi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3703-a0d375efe20028a9182ac27836f2615cba06d28b842490dc780154d471a6ef283</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Antibiotic</topic><topic>ARTHROPLASTY</topic><topic>Cement</topic><topic>Hip</topic><topic>Peri-prosthetic infection</topic><topic>Spacers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rollo, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Logroscino, Giandomenico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stomeo, Daniele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cioffi, Raffaele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Calvisi, Vittorio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meccariello, Luigi</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rollo, Giuseppe</au><au>Logroscino, Giandomenico</au><au>Stomeo, Daniele</au><au>Cioffi, Raffaele</au><au>Calvisi, Vittorio</au><au>Meccariello, Luigi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing the use of preformed vs hand-made antibiotic spacer cement in two stages revision of hip periprosthetic infection</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Orthop Trauma</addtitle><date>2020-10-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>Suppl 5</issue><spage>S772</spage><epage>S778</epage><pages>S772-S778</pages><issn>0976-5662</issn><eissn>2213-3445</eissn><abstract>The number of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) is continuously increasing because of the increasing number of arthroprostheses performed every year. Two-stage revision, using antibiotic-loaded spacers, remains the gold standard for their treatment. The aim of our study is to compare the use of preformed vs hand-made spacers in hip arthroplasty infections evaluating infection eradication, bone loss and clinical/functional outcomes.
From January 2010 to December 2017 we performed a prospective nonrandomized study. We pooled 50 patients affected by infected hip joint replacements, and divided them in 2 groups, one receiving commercially preformed spacers and the other receiving hand-made spacers. The study endpoint was set at 12 months. Intra-operative and peri-operative complications, Harris Hip Score (HHS), Short Form 12 Health Survey, intra-operative and radiological evaluation of bone loss were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, T-test and Fisher Exact test.
We found a statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the two groups in favour of the VancogenX group for the following variables: surgical time, first and second stage intraoperative complication rates, infection eradication. Moreover, the preformed-spacers group had better results in the preservation of bone stock, even though the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
Our results support the use of preformed antibiotic spacers, even though more studies are needed.</abstract><cop>India</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>32999554</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jcot.2020.08.003</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3669-189X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1301-5343</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0976-5662 |
| ispartof | Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2020-10, Vol.11 (Suppl 5), p.S772-S778 |
| issn | 0976-5662 2213-3445 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7503155 |
| source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present); PubMed Central |
| subjects | Antibiotic ARTHROPLASTY Cement Hip Peri-prosthetic infection Spacers |
| title | Comparing the use of preformed vs hand-made antibiotic spacer cement in two stages revision of hip periprosthetic infection |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T21%3A16%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20the%20use%20of%20preformed%20vs%20hand-made%20antibiotic%20spacer%20cement%20in%20two%20stages%20revision%20of%20hip%20periprosthetic%20infection&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20orthopaedics%20and%20trauma&rft.au=Rollo,%20Giuseppe&rft.date=2020-10-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=Suppl%205&rft.spage=S772&rft.epage=S778&rft.pages=S772-S778&rft.issn=0976-5662&rft.eissn=2213-3445&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jcot.2020.08.003&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2447839621%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2447839621&rft_id=info:pmid/32999554&rft_els_id=S0976566220303647&rfr_iscdi=true |