Cargando…

Risk of reinfection after two‐ or multiple‐stage knee revision surgery using superficial vancomycin coating and conventional spacers

This study investigates the effect of superficial vancomycin coating (SVC) in two‐ or more‐stage exchange procedures of prosthetic knee joint infections. We hypothesized that spacer treatment with SVC result in lower reinfection rates than conventional spacers after prosthetic reimplantation. Our se...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Amerstorfer, Florian, Schober, Martina, Valentin, Thomas, Klim, Sebastian, Leithner, Andreas, Fischerauer, Stefan, Glehr, Mathias
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8451795/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33118642
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jor.24892
_version_ 1784569924503470080
author Amerstorfer, Florian
Schober, Martina
Valentin, Thomas
Klim, Sebastian
Leithner, Andreas
Fischerauer, Stefan
Glehr, Mathias
author_facet Amerstorfer, Florian
Schober, Martina
Valentin, Thomas
Klim, Sebastian
Leithner, Andreas
Fischerauer, Stefan
Glehr, Mathias
author_sort Amerstorfer, Florian
collection PubMed
description This study investigates the effect of superficial vancomycin coating (SVC) in two‐ or more‐stage exchange procedures of prosthetic knee joint infections. We hypothesized that spacer treatment with SVC result in lower reinfection rates than conventional spacers after prosthetic reimplantation. Our secondary aim was to determine the demographic and treatment factors associated with reinfection rates. This retrospective cohort study compromised 96 cases with prosthetic knee infections. Twenty‐four cases were treated with a temporary SVC spacer and 72 cases with conventional spacers. Prosthetic reinfection occurred after a median observation period of 1.7 ± 4.0 years in 24 cases (25%). The prevalence of having a reinfection was not significantly different between the two treatment groups (13% [3 cases] in the SVC group vs. 29% [21 cases] in the conventional spacer group [p = .104]). In seven cases (7.3%), two in the SVC group (8.3%) and five (6.9%) in the conventional spacer group (p ≥ .999), histological, respectively microbiological evaluations from the intraoperative specimens revealed persistent infection at the second stage. Nevertheless, in all seven cases no significant higher risk of periprosthetic reinfection was observed during follow‐up (p = .750). Our secondary investigation of cofactors revealed that spacers additionally stabilized by nails were significantly associated with a 3.9‐fold higher hazard ratio of sustaining a reinfection of revision prosthesis (p = .005).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8451795
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84517952021-09-27 Risk of reinfection after two‐ or multiple‐stage knee revision surgery using superficial vancomycin coating and conventional spacers Amerstorfer, Florian Schober, Martina Valentin, Thomas Klim, Sebastian Leithner, Andreas Fischerauer, Stefan Glehr, Mathias J Orthop Res Research Articles This study investigates the effect of superficial vancomycin coating (SVC) in two‐ or more‐stage exchange procedures of prosthetic knee joint infections. We hypothesized that spacer treatment with SVC result in lower reinfection rates than conventional spacers after prosthetic reimplantation. Our secondary aim was to determine the demographic and treatment factors associated with reinfection rates. This retrospective cohort study compromised 96 cases with prosthetic knee infections. Twenty‐four cases were treated with a temporary SVC spacer and 72 cases with conventional spacers. Prosthetic reinfection occurred after a median observation period of 1.7 ± 4.0 years in 24 cases (25%). The prevalence of having a reinfection was not significantly different between the two treatment groups (13% [3 cases] in the SVC group vs. 29% [21 cases] in the conventional spacer group [p = .104]). In seven cases (7.3%), two in the SVC group (8.3%) and five (6.9%) in the conventional spacer group (p ≥ .999), histological, respectively microbiological evaluations from the intraoperative specimens revealed persistent infection at the second stage. Nevertheless, in all seven cases no significant higher risk of periprosthetic reinfection was observed during follow‐up (p = .750). Our secondary investigation of cofactors revealed that spacers additionally stabilized by nails were significantly associated with a 3.9‐fold higher hazard ratio of sustaining a reinfection of revision prosthesis (p = .005). John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-11-04 2021-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8451795/ /pubmed/33118642 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jor.24892 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research® published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Orthopaedic Research Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Amerstorfer, Florian
Schober, Martina
Valentin, Thomas
Klim, Sebastian
Leithner, Andreas
Fischerauer, Stefan
Glehr, Mathias
Risk of reinfection after two‐ or multiple‐stage knee revision surgery using superficial vancomycin coating and conventional spacers
title Risk of reinfection after two‐ or multiple‐stage knee revision surgery using superficial vancomycin coating and conventional spacers
title_full Risk of reinfection after two‐ or multiple‐stage knee revision surgery using superficial vancomycin coating and conventional spacers
title_fullStr Risk of reinfection after two‐ or multiple‐stage knee revision surgery using superficial vancomycin coating and conventional spacers
title_full_unstemmed Risk of reinfection after two‐ or multiple‐stage knee revision surgery using superficial vancomycin coating and conventional spacers
title_short Risk of reinfection after two‐ or multiple‐stage knee revision surgery using superficial vancomycin coating and conventional spacers
title_sort risk of reinfection after two‐ or multiple‐stage knee revision surgery using superficial vancomycin coating and conventional spacers
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8451795/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33118642
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jor.24892
work_keys_str_mv AT amerstorferflorian riskofreinfectionaftertwoormultiplestagekneerevisionsurgeryusingsuperficialvancomycincoatingandconventionalspacers
AT schobermartina riskofreinfectionaftertwoormultiplestagekneerevisionsurgeryusingsuperficialvancomycincoatingandconventionalspacers
AT valentinthomas riskofreinfectionaftertwoormultiplestagekneerevisionsurgeryusingsuperficialvancomycincoatingandconventionalspacers
AT klimsebastian riskofreinfectionaftertwoormultiplestagekneerevisionsurgeryusingsuperficialvancomycincoatingandconventionalspacers
AT leithnerandreas riskofreinfectionaftertwoormultiplestagekneerevisionsurgeryusingsuperficialvancomycincoatingandconventionalspacers
AT fischerauerstefan riskofreinfectionaftertwoormultiplestagekneerevisionsurgeryusingsuperficialvancomycincoatingandconventionalspacers
AT glehrmathias riskofreinfectionaftertwoormultiplestagekneerevisionsurgeryusingsuperficialvancomycincoatingandconventionalspacers