Aim. Antibiotic loaded spacers are often used during a two-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) both for its mechanical properties and as a means for local antibiotic delivery. The main goal of this study is to compare the rate of positive cultures during reimplantation with the use of different antibiotic loaded spacers: aminoglycoside only vs. combined glycopeptide/aminoglycoside vs. combined glycopeptide/carbapenem/aminoglycoside. Method. We retrospectively evaluated every two-stage exchange procedures for infected hip/knee arthroplasty between 2012–2018. Microbiological findings in the first and second stage were registered as well as the type of spacer and antibiotic(s) used. Cases in whom no cultures were obtained during reimplantation and cases without sufficient data on antibiotic(s) used in cement spacers were excluded. Results. Fifty-four cases were included (20THA and 34TKA), with an overall rate of positive cultures during reimplantation of 18.5% (10/54). The rate of positive cultures was statistically significant higher among spacers with monotherapy with aminoglycoside compared to spacers with combined antibiotic therapy- 35.7% (5/14) vs. 12.5% (5/40) respectively(p<0.05). Comparing those with combined glycopeptide/aminoglycoside (2/19) with triple glycopeptide/carbapenem/aminoglycoside therapy (3/21) there was no significant difference. Microorganisms present during the second stage were mostly staphylococci (coagulase-negative in four cases, S.aureus in three), Corynebacterium striatum, Enterococcus faecalis, C.albicans in one case each. In most cases (8/10), the isolated microorganism was the same as the first stage and was resistant to the antibiotic(s) used in the spacer in seven cases. Failure rate with the need for subsequent surgery was significantly higher at 60% (6/10) in cases with positive cultures at reimplantation compared to 4.5% (2/44) for those with negative cultures during reimplantation(p=0.0005). Conclusions. It has recently been suggested that adding a glycopeptide to the spacer may be advantageous when compared to spacers with aminoglycoside monotherapy, as it will produce significantly lower rates of positive cultures during reimplantation which have been shown to increase the risk of subsequent failure as is the case in our study. Local unavailability of obtaining powder aminoglycosides has driven us to manually add high doses of vancomycin and meropenem to commercially available low-dose gentamicin cement in many of our spacers and they seem to to perform just as well as commercially available vancomycin/gentamicin combination. Although many other variables not considered in this study may influence the rate of positive cultures during the second stage (quality of initial debridement, systemic antibiotic therapy, etc.), we believe these results portrait a sufficiently accurate picture of clinical results with the use of different spacers

The use of antibiotic-spacer, it is essential to treat infections in orthopedics. They play a dual role, to fight the infection directly on the outbreak and keep the length or the articulation of the limbs thus facilitating the second operation. To date it is not known, the superiority of use of 3 antibiotics compared to two. Authors try to compare industrial preformed spacers with two antibiotics with custom made spacers with three antibiotics to assess (a) the control of infection, (b) complications, (c) quality of life, (d) pain and (e) patient satisfaction. 137 patients treated at the Institute Codivilla-Putti from January 2010 to December 2012 were considered: 68 patients treated with antibiotic preformed spacer (clindamycin + gentamicin) or (Erythromycin + Colistin), 69 patients treated with antibiotic spacer added with 3 antibiotics (clindamycin + gentamicin + vancomycin) or (Erythromycin Vancomycin + Colistin). Demographic data were collected:. type and site of infection (classified by Cerny-Mader). microbiological results. previous surgeries. years of illness. Primary outcome of infection control or relapse after at least 12 months of follow-up were assessed. Complications were recorded. Each patient completed a test on the quality of life and a satisfaction scale self-referenced. After a mean follow-up of 33.82 months (SD 14:50), at the end of the treatment, at last follow up 15/133 were infected. 4 died from other causes not correlated with infection, whit a 11.3% rate of reinfection. Up to our knowledge, there is only one study using the procedure in two steps comparing the use of spacers loaded with 2 or 3 antibiotics. Our results show that a revision protocol in two steps with 3 antibiotic loaded spacers have a high success rate in the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis. We can observe that patients treated with custom-made cements are 4 percentage points lower than those treated with preformed cements, but there are no statistically significant differences in the rate of recurrence of infection. Our results suggest that a two stages procedure with three antibiotic loaded spacers should be considered in selected patients to avoid rescue procedures, such as amputation and arthrodesis. We think is important to do more randomized trials, controlled, prospective study with a larger group to detect statistically significant differences

Introduction. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious problem and requires great effort and cost for its treatment. Treatment options may vary from resection arthroplasty, retention of prosthesis with debridement, one stage revision and two stage revision with handmade antibiotic impregnated cement spacer or with prefabricated antibiotic loaded cement spacer. Two stage revision remains the gold standard for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection after Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). This study was aimed to find the efficacy and cost effectiveness of handmade antibiotic impregnated articulating cement spacer over commercially available prefabricated antibiotic loaded cement spacer for the treatment of deep PJI of hip prosthesis and to evaluate its functional outcome. Material and methods. A total of 23 PJI patients were enrolled in this prospective cohort study. In the two stages of revision, the first stage consisted of thorough debridement, implant removal and implantation of handmade articulating antibiotic impregnated cement spacer. The second stage surgery consisted of removal of cement spacer, thorough debridement and implantation of new prosthesis. All patients were followed for a period of 24 months. Results. A total of 23 patients (15 males and 8 females) underwent two stage revision arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic joint infection. The mean age of the patient was 57 years. The handmade antibiotic impregnated cement spacer was retained for 16– 20 weeks. Common organism observed was coagulase negative staphylococci followed by Staphylococcus aureus. After an average follow up of 2 years, 20 patients with PJI remained clinically free of infection. In 2 patients there was recurrence of infection. Conclusion. We conclude that two stage revision by hand made cement spacer is successful in eradication of infection with satisfactory functional outcome. Furthermore, these handmade cement spacer are cost effective and their efficacy may be comparable to commercially available prefabricated spacer

The practice at most centers in North America for the investigation and management of non-acute infection after hip replacement has been relatively standard for some time. Diagnosis has depended on a thorough history, physical examination, plain radiographs, straightforward laboratory inflammatory markers, joint aspiration for bacteriologic study, intraoperative frozen section in selected cases, and intraoperative synovial biopsies for confirmatory bacteriologic evaluation. The cornerstone of treatment on this continent has revolved around two-stage revision hip replacement, with increasing popularity for the use of interval articulating antibiotic loaded spacers, and increasing use of cementless fixation at the second stage. But this standard approach has been under increasing scrutiny in recent years, for good reason. The use of more precise “best evidence” paradigms on which to base the diagnosis have been developed. There is encouraging work on the application of more specific synovial and serum markers. The need to remove all implant material in all cases has been challenged. And there is evidence that the two stage approach is associated with greater morbidity, mortality and cost. The latter has led to a re-examination of the role and results of single-stage exchange revision, at least in selected cases, where the patient is immune competent, the soft tissue and bone anatomy is not badly deficient, the organism is known, and the antibiotic sensitivity is favorable. The most encouraging of the recent developments is the increasing consensus that multicenter collaborative study is required if we are to make genuine progress in the one-stage/two-stage debate. At least one multicenter prospective randomised study is scheduled to commence in 2015

A “two-stage exchange” remains the gold standard for treatment of the infected TKA in North America. Although there is interest in “one-stage exchange” this technique is not as familiar to many US surgeons and it is unclear if the reported results of Europe can be translated to North American practice. Specific concerns include the “radicalness” of the debridement required (which oftentimes includes the collateral ligaments, hence the popularity of hinged implants where this approach is common) and the use of fully cemented stems, which are extremely difficulty to remove if infection recurs. Thus while the idea of a one stage exchange is attractive to many North American surgeons, careful study will be required to determine if success can be achieved with a more “conservative” debridement and the use of cementless stems which are preferred by some surgeons. The basic principles of a two-stage exchange include: Thorough debridement of all infected appearing foreign material and all cement; Placement of an interval antibiotic loaded spacer (note that the addition of antibiotics to bone cement is NOT FDA approved) – 4–6g of antibiotics per pkg of cement; typically vancomycin + tobramycin; Higher viscosity cement may be associated with higher elution; The combination of antibiotics also leads to higher elution. Antibiotic spacers can be “articulating” or “static”. Potential advantages of an articulating spacer include greater patient comfort and an easier approach at the second stage exchange as soft tissue tension and range of motion is maintained. However, these spacers are oftentimes more costly and can break or dislocate. The first stage is followed by approximately 6 weeks of organism specific IV antibiotics. An interdisciplinary approach with an infectious disease specialist, internal medicine and a nutritionist optimises outcomes. Our protocol then includes weekly ESR and CRP to monitor their trend. These labs are re-checked two weeks after cessation of antibiotics to ensure the trend has not changed. The knee is routinely aspirated at this time point and the fluid obtained sent for a synovial fluid WBC count with differential and cultures (although the value of such cultures is controversial). We have found that while the ESR and CRP are significantly lower than prior to removal of the infected implant, they often times DO NOT normalise and there is no specific cut-off value that predicts persistent infection

A “two-stage exchange” remains the gold standard for treatment of the infected THA in North America. Although there is interest in “one-stage exchange” this technique is predicated on the use of fixation of the revision implants with antibiotic loaded cement, which is not as popular in North America. Diagnosis is critical and in general consists of a screening serum ESR and CRP followed by selective aspiration if the above are abnormal and/or if the clinical history is suspicious. The aspirated fluid is sent for a synovial fluid WBC (cut-off approximately 3,000 WBC/μL), differential (cut-off 80% PMN) and culture. The basic tenets of treatment include: . Thorough debridement of all infected appearing cement and all foreign material. Placement of an interval antibiotic loaded spacer (note that the addition of antibiotics to bone cement is NOT FDA approved). –. 4–6 g of antibiotics per pkg of cement; typically vancomycin + tobramycin. –. Higher viscosity cement may be associated with higher elution. –. Higher elution with combination of antibiotics. Antibiotic spacers can be “articulating” or “static”. Potential advantages of an articulating spacer include greater patient comfort and an easier approach at the second stage exchange as leg length and soft tissue tension is maintained. However, these spacers are oftentimes more costly and can dislocate. May not be appropriate in cases where there is severe bone loss that cannot support partial weight bearing or if the abductors are compromised (higher risk of dislocation). The first stage is followed by approximately 6 weeks of organism specific IV antibiotics. An interdisciplinary approach with an infectious disease specialist, internal medicine and a nutritionist optimises outcomes. Our protocol then includes weekly ESR and CRP to monitor their trend. These labs are re-checked two weeks after cessation of antibiotics to ensure the trend has not changed. We have found that while the ESR and CRP are significantly lower than prior to the 1st stage, they often times DO NOT normalise and there is no specific cut-off value that predicts persistent infection. An intra-operative aspiration for synovial fluid WBC count and differential is obtained intra-operatively (cut-off values of approximately 3,000 WBC/μl and 80% PMN) and are the best tests to identify persistent infection

Aim. To assess the effectiveness of role of frozen section in revision arthroplasty. Method. 21 patients with infected hip arthroplasties were operated in the form of one or two-staged revision hip arthroplasties. A frozen section was obtained intra-operatively and >5 PMN's/ HPF was considered as a positive indicator of infection. Fig 1 llustrating frozen section image. If the frozen section was reported negative (≤5 PMN's/HPF), the revision prosthesis was implanted after a thorough debridement and a wash. If the frozen section was reported as positive, after the debridement a non-articulating antibiotic loaded cement spacer was implanted for 8 weeks, supplemented with 3 weeks of intravenous antibiotics and 3 weeks of oral antibiotics. This was followed by an antibiotic free interval of 2 weeks. The patient was taken up for a revision surgery once the frozen section study was negative (≤5 PMN's/HPF). The patients were followed up for minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 2 years after the revision for any evidence of infection (assessed clinically and serologically, radiologically). Results. 15 patients had a positive frozen section (>5PMN's/HPF) in the first stage and were treated with prosthesis removal and cement spacer insertion for 8 weeks. In the 2nd stage, out of 15 patients, 14 underwent revision arthroplasty, while 1 patient underwent reapplication of the cement spacer. As per the follow up of ESR & CRP values, clinically and radiologically no patients had any evidence of infection. The average follow up was 17.04 months (range 12–24 months). 1 patient had persistently raised ESR (34mm/hr) which may be attributable to other causes Frozen section analysis of PMN's per high power field had 100% specificity in our patients in detecting periprosthetic joint infection. Conclusions. Intraoperative frozen section study is a reliable indicator in predicting a diagnosis of PJI with good accuracy in ruling out this diagnosis. Frozen section study should thus be considered a relevant part of the challenging diagnostic work-up for patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty

Aim. Which patients is bone-defect-reconstruction with the Masquelet-technique suitable and which problems did we see?. Method. From 11/2011 to 4/2016 we treated 49 Patients (12f/37m) with bone-defects up to 150mm after septic complications with the Masquelet-technique. We had infected-non-unions of upper and lower extremity, chronic osteomyelitis, infected knee-arthrodesis and upper-ancle-empyema. On average the patients were 48 (8–74) years old. The mean bone-defect-size was 60 mm (25–150). From other hospitals came 47 of the 49 patient, where they had up to 20 (mean 4,9) operations caused by the infection. The time before transfer to our hospital was on average 177days (6–720). 40 patients receaved flaps because of soft tissue-defects (12 free flaps, 28 local flaps). 21 patients suffered a polytrauma. In 8 cases the femur, in 4 cases a knee-arthrodesis, in 34 cases tibia, in 2 cases humerus and in 1 case the ulna were infected resulting in bone defects. Indication for the Masquelet-technique was low-/incompliance in 35 cases due to higher grade of traumatic brain injury and polytrauma and difficult soft-tissue conditions, in 9 times problems with segment-transport and in 5 cases as dead space management. Positive microbial detection succeeded in 32 patients at the first operation. Mainly we found difficult to treat bacteria. After treating the infection with radical sequestrectomy, removal of foreign bodies and filling the defect with antibiotic loaded cement spacer and external fixation we removed the spacer6–8 weeks later and filled the defect with bone graft. In 23 cases we stabilized the defect then with an internal angle stable plate. All patients were examined clinically and radiologically every 4–6 weeks in our outpatient-department until full weight bearing, later every 3 months. Results. In 41 of 49 cases the infection was clinically treated successfully. 21 patients are allowed for full weight bearing (all with secondary internal plates). There were 8 recurrences of infection, 22 instabilities needing internal stabilization and further bone graft. We saw “Plate-breaks” in 4 cases. 2 patients underwent amputation. Conclusions. For patients with low-/incompliance for various reasons and for those with difficult soft tissue conditions following flaps the Masquelet technique is a valuable alternative to the normal bone graft and to the segment transport. The stiffness of the new Masquelet bone like a rod is a problem. Internal fixation is often necessary

Several risk factors can and should be addressed during first stage or spacer implantation surgery in order to minimize complications. Technical aspects as well as practical tips and pearls to overcome common nuisances such as spacer instability or femoral and acetabular bone loss will be discussed and shown with pictures. Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is one of the most successful procedures in orthopaedics and excellent results are expected in virtually all cases. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) though unusual, is one of the most frequent and challenging complications after TJA. It is the third most common cause of revision in total hip replacement, responsible for up to 15% of all cases. In the past few years several improvements have been made in the management of an infected total hip prosthesis. Nevertheless it remains a challenging problem for the orthopaedic surgeon. Although numerous studies report favourable outcomes after one-stage revision surgery, two-stage has traditionally been considered as the gold standard for management of chronic infection. Two-stage exchange consists of debridement, resection of infected implants and usually temporary placement of an antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer before reimplantation of a new prosthesis. Spacers can be classified as static or articulating. The goals of using an articulating antibiotic loaded cement spacer are two-fold: to enhance the clearance of infection by local antibiotic therapy and dead-space management while maintaining joint function during treatment thus improving the functional outcome at reimplantation. Still, hip spacer implantation is not innocuous and there are several possible complications. Going forward, one must consider not just eradicating infection but also the importance of restoring function. In this regard using a mobile spacer adds an element of physiologic motion that both increases patient comfort between stages and facilitates re-implantation surgery. Conversely, mechanical complications are one of the major consequences of this preference. Be that as it may there are ways to minimize these problems. It is the surgeon responsibility to optimize mechanical circumstances as much as possible. I would like to thank Dr. Ricardo Sousa for his help with this work

INTRODUCTION. Conventional surgical exposures are usually inadequate for 2-stage revision knee replacement ofinfected implants. Reduced range of motion, extensor mechanism stiffness, peripatellar contracture and soft tissue scarring make patellar eversion difficult and forced eversion places the integrity of the extensor mechanism at risk. On the contrary, a wide exposure is fundamental to allow complete cement spacer removal, soft tissue balancing, management of bone loss and reimplantation without damaging periarticular soft tissues. OBJECTIVES. To compare the long-term clinical, functional and radiographic results and the reinfection rate of the quadriceps snip approach and the tibial tubercle osteotomy in 2-stage revision knee replacement performed for septic loosening of the primary implant. METHODS. In our department, 87 patients had a 2 stage revision knee replacement for septic loosening of the primary implant between 1996 and 2008. In all patients, first stage consisted of primary implant removal, extensive soft tissue debridement and positioning of a static antibiotic loaded cement spacer. The timing for reimplantation was decided basing on negative clinical and laboratory (ESR, CRP) signs and negative Leukoscan results. For reimplantation, a quadriceps snip was used in patients with an intraoperative flexion >90° (Group A) while a tibial tubercle osteotomy (Group B) was used in patients with an intraoperative flexion <90°. RESULTS. At observation point, 4 patients died for reasons unrelated to surgery, leaving 42 patients in Group A and 41 in Group B. We had a total amount of 10 recurrent infections (11%) after reimplantation, 7 patients in Group A and 3 patients in Group B (p<0.005). Patients with a reinfection in Group A were treated with a knee fusion in 4 cases, a rerevision in 2 cases and an amputation above the knee in 1 case, while all those with a reinfection in Group B had a knee fusion. According to HSS score, 11 patients were rated as Excelent/Good in Group A and 9 patients in Group B (p=n.s.). Three patients had a major complication in Group A and 0 patients in Group B (p=0.005). No differences were found between the two groups regarding range of motion and subjective satisfaction. CONCLUSION. Tibial tubercle osteotomy is a safe procedure to obtain a wide exposure in 2-stage revision knee replacement performed for septic loosening of the primary implant and it is effective in reducing reinfection rate without compromising clinical results and range of motion

Revision of infected TKA is one of the most challenging operation as the surgeon should achieve two goals, ie eradication of infection and restoration of function. For the eradication of infection, a minimum of two operations are needed in most of cases. First stage of revision is meticulous debridement and insertion of antibiotic loaded cement. During arthrotomy, thick fibrous and granulation tissues which is located in the suprapatella pouch, lateral site to the patella tendon and posterior joint space should be removed so as to get better exposure, to get rid of infection source and to get better functional result. During debridement, I use highly concentrated antibiotic saline (1 gm vancomycin in 10cc saline), for irrigation of the operation field. I also pack the opening of the medullary canal so as to prevent the debris from entering into the medullary canal. I use antibiotics with the ratio of 1:3. To reduce the dead space in the medullary canal I insert a dowel shaped antibiotic loaded cement spacer made from one pack of cement and fill the medullary canal. Thereafter two packs of cement are used to make a block to fill the gap between femur and tibia. The cement block should be large enough to cover the distal femur and proximal tibia so as not to cause bone defect and knee dislocation during walking. After first stage of operation, antibiotics are administered for 4∼8 wks until the CRP levels become normalized and clinical findings show no sign of infection. The 2. nd. stage of operation is planned when clinical and laboratory signs of infection subside. The decision whether to reimplant the prosthesis or not is based on the operation findings and polymorphonuclear cell count on frozen section. However operation findings are considered more important than the frozen section results for reimplantation. If operative findings are clean, I do reimplanation even though the polymorphonuclear cell count is more than 5 on high power field(hpf) on frozen section. I have adopted numbering system to take specimen. Number 1 is specimen from suprapatella pouch, No 2 is that from gap between the femur and tibia, No 3 is that from femoral intramedullary canal, No 4 is that from tibial intramedullary canal, and No 5 is that from most unhealthy site. In a retrospective analysis of 16 cases which received reimplantation despite of the prescence of more than five polymorphonuclear cells on intra-operative frozen sections, none of the cases had recurrence of infection at a final follow up of 2 years. The femoral medullary canal was the most prevalent site for higher polymorphonuclear cell count. In conclusion, indication is the first step for successful reimplantion. Two stage revision is recommended and meticulous debridement is utmost important in first stage operation. Block type antibiotic loaded cement is sufficient for a good result. Clinical, laboratory and operative findings are more important than polymorphonuclear cell count on frozen section to decide reimplantation. I propose numbering system of the specimen site for frozen section, just as in tumor surgery