Antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer versus antibiotic irrigating metal spacer for infection management after THA.

Abstract

We prospectively compared the effects of an antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer and an antibiotic irrigating metal spacer in the treatment of infections after total hip arthroplasty (THA) to determine a better method for 2-stage revision of infected THA. We used a uniform protocol of a 3-month spacer interval and specific local and systemic antibiotic therapies. The clinical outcome was determined by assessing operation time, blood loss during spacer implantation, hospital stay and time in bed, and joint function. The patients were followed for a mean 61.4 months (range, 24-94 months). Antibiotic-impregnated cement spacers had a higher rate of infection control than antibiotic irrigating metal spacers (96.2% vs 76%, respectively; P<.01), with no recurrence of infections or implant loosening. Patients receiving antibiotic-impregnated cement spacers had a shorter operation time (2.42±0.65 vs 3.34±0.36 hours metal spacers; P<.01), less blood loss (1085.48±279.49 vs 1964.78±469.23 mL metal spacers; P<.01), a shorter hospital stay (24.53±4.72 days vs 51.36±3.46 days metal spacers; P<.01), and better function before the second step of the 2-stage revision (Harris Hip Score, 88.16±6.94 vs 79.54±6.48 metal spacers; P<.05), and they were free from long-term irrigation. Compared with the antibiotic irrigating metal spacer, the antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer is characterized by higher infection control rate, better joint function recovery before the second operation, shorter operation time, and less blood loss, with no continuous irrigation required.