1887

Abstract

Purpose. Due to numerous advantages of the combination of clindamycin and gentamicin in polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement, promising preliminary results have been reported. However, there are no data that analyse mid-term outcomes.

Methodology.This pilot study included patients who experienced 5 years of follow-up and who were treated with gentamicin- and clindamycin-loaded (G+C) PMMA cement. They were divided into two groups: (1) the periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) comprising patients who underwent a one-stage exchange, and (2) aseptic group comprising patients who underwent aseptic revision or primary arthroplasty procedures, but were considered to be high-risk patients for infection. We evaluated the rate of septic and aseptic revision arthroplasty with a minimum of 5-year follow-up.

Results/Key findings. A total of 32 patients in both groups were included. Eighteen patients belonged to the PJI-group and 14 belonged to the aseptic group. There was no reinfection among the patients of the PJI group. Infection was prevented in the aseptic group, including patients with a history of PJI or at higher risk of infection. No patient underwent an exchange of the cemented prosthesis at the 5-year follow-up [72-82 months, standard deviation (sd)=3.3].

Conclusions. The local use of G+C bone cement during septic and aseptic revision arthroplasty, was associated with a high success rate for the eradication of infection following one-stage septic exchange, and with prevention of infection in high-risk patients.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000895
2019-01-31
2019-12-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Frommelt L. [Guidelines on antimicrobial therapy in situations of periprosthetic THR infection]. Orthopade 2004;33:822–828 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Wahlig H. Kinetics of the liberation of antibiotics from bone cements-results of comparative studies in vitro and in vivo. Aktuelle Probl Chir Orthop 1987;31:221–226[PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Engesaeter LB, Lie SA, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Vollset SE et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in total hip arthroplasty: effects of antibiotic prophylaxis systemically and in bone cement on the revision rate of 22,170 primary hip replacements followed 0-14 years in the norwegian arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop Scand 2003;74:644–651 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Parvizi J, Saleh KJ, Ragland PS, Pour AE, Mont MA. Efficacy of antibiotic-impregnated cement in total hip replacement. Acta Orthop 2008;79:335–341 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bourne RB. Prophylactic use of antibiotic bone cement: an emerging standard-in the affirmative. J Arthroplasty 2004;19:69–72[PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Hanssen AD. Prophylactic use of antibiotic bone cement: an emerging standard-in opposition. J Arthroplasty 2004;19:73–77[PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Malhotra A, Lieb E, Berberich C, Kühn KD. PMMA cements in revision surgery. In Kühn K-D. (editor) Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Berlin, 326 Heidelberg: Springer; 2018; pp.228–236
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Frommelt L, Kühn KD. Antibiotic-loaded cement. In Breusch S, Malchau H. (editors) The Well-Cemented Total Hip Arthroplastyvol. 329 Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2005; pp.86–92
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Athans V, Veve MP, Davis SL. Trowels and tribulations: review of antimicrobial-impregnated bone cements in prosthetic joint surgery. Pharmacotherapy 2017;37:1565–1577 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Kühn KD, Lieb E, Berberich C. PMMA bone cement: what is the role of local antibiotics?. Maitrise Orthopaed Proceeding of No 243 2016;1–15
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Villanueva-Martinez M, Sanz-Ruiz P, Berberich C. Spacer management. Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2018; pp.228–33536
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Walenkamp G, Murray DW, Henze U, Kock HJ. Bone cement used in one-stage revision arthroplasty. In Walenkamp GHIM, Murray DW, Henze U, Kock HJ. (editors) Bone Cements and Cementing Technique Heidelberg: Springer, Berlin; 2001; pp.127–134
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Parikh MS, Antony S. A comprehensive review of the diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infections in the absence of positive cultures. J Infect Public Health 2016;9:545–556 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kühn KD. Up-to-Date comparison of physical and chemical properties of commercial materials. In Kühn K-D. (editor) Bone Cements Berlin, Heidelberg: Berlin: Springer; 2000
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Neut D, Hendriks JG, van Horn JR, Kowalski RS, van der Mei HC et al. Antimicrobial efficacy of gentamicin-loaded acrylic bone cements with fusidic acid or clindamycin added. J Orthop Res 2006;24:291–299 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Rienmüller A, Borens O. Propionibacterium prosthetic joint infection: experience from a retrospective database analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2016;26:429–434 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ensing GT, van Horn JR, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ, Neut D. Copal bone cement is more effective in preventing biofilm formation than Palacos R-G. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466:1492–1498 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Sprowson AP, Jensen CD, Gupta S, Parsons N, Murty AN et al. The effect of high dose antibiotic impregnated cement on rate of surgical site infection after hip hemiarthroplasty for fractured neck of femur: a protocol for a double-blind quasi randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013;14:356 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Sprowson AP, Jensen C, Chambers S, Parsons NR, Aradhyula NM et al. The use of high-dose dual-impregnated antibiotic-laden cement with hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of a fracture of the hip: The fractured hip infection trial. Bone Joint J 2016;98- 356 B:1534–1541 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Tyas B, Marsh M, Oswald T, Refaie R, Molyneux C et al. Antibiotic resistance profiles of deep surgical site infections in hip hemiarthroplasty; comparing low dose single antibiotic versus high dose dual antibiotic impregnated cement. J Bone Jt Infect 2018;3:123–129 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Foerster G, Frommelt L, Gehrke T. Therapy using antibiotic loaded PMMA. Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Germany: Springer; 2018; pp.228–236
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fink B, Vogt S, Reinsch M, Büchner H. Sufficient release of antibiotic by a spacer 6 weeks after implantation in two-stage revision of infected hip prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469:3141–3147 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Valour F, Trouillet-Assant S, Riffard N, Tasse J, Flammier S et al. Antimicrobial activity against intraosteoblastic Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015;59:2029–2036 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Dunne N, Hill J, McAfee P, Todd K, Kirkpatrick R et al. In vitro study of the efficacy of acrylic bone cement loaded with supplementary amounts of gentamicin: effect on mechanical properties, antibiotic release, and biofilm formation. Acta Orthop 2007;78:774–785 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000895
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000895
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error