RESUMEN
Rifampicin is one of the mainstays in treating staphylococcal prosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, discontinuation due to intolerance, drug interactions, and adverse events is common. Two-stage revision surgery remains the gold standard, with the number of revision arthroplasties steadily increasing. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a novel two-stage revision protocol for staphylococcal prosthetic joint infection (PJI) utilizing bone cement spacers loaded with multiple high doses of antibiotics. Additionally, it seeks to analyze outcomes in patients ineligible for rifampicin treatment. A retrospective review of 43 cases of staphylococcal hip and knee prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) from 2012 to 2020 was conducted. In all instances, a commercial cement containing 1 g of gentamicin and 1 g of clindamycin, augmented with 4 g of vancomycin and 2 g of ceftazidime, was employed to cast a spacer manually after thorough surgical debridement. We report an eradication rate of 82%, with no significant differences observed (p = 0.673) between patients treated with (84%, n = 19) and without rifampicin (79%, n = 24). There were no disparities in positive culture rates (7%), spacer replacement (18%), or survival analysis (p = 0.514) after an average follow-up of 68 months (range 10-147) in the absence of systemic toxicity and surgical complications superimposable to those previously reported. In conclusion, two-stage revision with local high doses of ceftazidime, vancomycin, gentamicin, and clindamycin demonstrates high effectiveness in treating staphylococcal PJIs. Notably, systemic rifampicin does not influence the outcomes. This protocol, with multiple high doses of antibiotics loaded into the bone cement spacer, is presented as a viable and safe alternative for patients unsuitable for rifampicin treatment.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The rising incidence and complexity of revision knee arthroplasty has led to an increase in the use of metaphyseal reconstruction systems. One of the most widely used systems are metaphyseal sleeves as they have demonstrated excellent long-term survival. However, there is concern about the possible difficulty of extracting a sleeve if it were necessary, as no known procedures have yet been validated. METHODS: We examined the outcomes of removing 23 well-integrated metaphyseal sleeves using the same systematized technique. RESULTS: All sleeves were extracted without any intraoperative complications. Four subjects required an osteotomy to complete the extraction, while 62% of the sample were found to have an AORI IIB defect. All cases were successfully reconstructed with a new metaphyseal fixation, implanting a new sleeve in 38% of subjects compared with cones in the remaining 62%. CONCLUSIONS: The technique described here produced successful, reproducible outcomes for the removal of integrated metaphyseal sleeves with minimal bone loss and no intraoperative complications.
