Research ExplorerPublicationsClinical evaluation of a new technique for custom-made space...

Clinical evaluation of a new technique for custom-made spacers in septic two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasties

Standard

Clinical evaluation of a new technique for custom-made spacers in septic two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasties. / Mederake, Moritz; Hofmann, Ulf Krister; Fink, Bernd.

In: ARCH ORTHOP TRAUM SU, Vol. 143, No. 8, 08.2023, p. 5395-5403.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Mederake, M, Hofmann, UK & Fink, B 2023, 'Clinical evaluation of a new technique for custom-made spacers in septic two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasties', ARCH ORTHOP TRAUM SU, vol. 143, no. 8, pp. 5395-5403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04748-z

APA

Mederake, M., Hofmann, U. K., & Fink, B. (2023). Clinical evaluation of a new technique for custom-made spacers in septic two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasties. ARCH ORTHOP TRAUM SU, 143(8), 5395-5403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04748-z

Vancouver

Mederake M, Hofmann UK, Fink B. Clinical evaluation of a new technique for custom-made spacers in septic two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasties. ARCH ORTHOP TRAUM SU. 2023 Aug;143(8):5395-5403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04748-z

Bibtex

@article{a1e4a7db70934c2fba90275bad187c7f,
title = "Clinical evaluation of a new technique for custom-made spacers in septic two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasties",
abstract = "INTRODUCTION: In 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 METHODS: Our 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.RESULTS: With 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.CONCLUSIONS: In 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.",
keywords = "Humans, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/adverse effects, Prosthesis-Related Infections/surgery, Retrospective Studies, Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use, Bone Cements, Reoperation/methods, Treatment Outcome",
author = "Moritz Mederake and Hofmann, {Ulf Krister} and Bernd Fink",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2023. The Author(s).",
year = "2023",
month = aug,
doi = "10.1007/s00402-022-04748-z",
language = "English",
volume = "143",
pages = "5395--5403",
journal = "ARCH ORTHOP TRAUM SU",
issn = "0936-8051",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "8",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical evaluation of a new technique for custom-made spacers in septic two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasties

AU - Mederake, Moritz

AU - Hofmann, Ulf Krister

AU - Fink, Bernd

N1 - © 2023. The Author(s).

PY - 2023/8

Y1 - 2023/8

N2 - INTRODUCTION: In 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 METHODS: Our 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.RESULTS: With 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.CONCLUSIONS: In 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.

AB - INTRODUCTION: In 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 METHODS: Our 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.RESULTS: With 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.CONCLUSIONS: In 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.

KW - Humans

KW - Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/adverse effects

KW - Prosthesis-Related Infections/surgery

KW - Retrospective Studies

KW - Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use

KW - Bone Cements

KW - Reoperation/methods

KW - Treatment Outcome

U2 - 10.1007/s00402-022-04748-z

DO - 10.1007/s00402-022-04748-z

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 36604321

VL - 143

SP - 5395

EP - 5403

JO - ARCH ORTHOP TRAUM SU

JF - ARCH ORTHOP TRAUM SU

SN - 0936-8051

IS - 8

ER -