Comparing Articulating Spacers for Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: All-Cement Versus Real-Component Articulating Spacers.

BACKGROUND: There are a variety of methods available to treat periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), including 2-stage revision with the use of an antibiotic spacer. This study compares the outcomes of real-component (RC) and all-cement (AC) articulating spacers for total hip arthroplasty (THA) PJI treatment. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study assessed all articulating spacers placed for THA PJI between April 2011 and August 2020. Patients were dichotomized based on spacer type (RC vs AC). RESULTS: One hundred four patients received articulating spacer constructs (RC group = 75, AC group = 29). Leg-length discrepancy was significantly greater in the AC group after the second stage (3.58 vs 12.00 mm, P = .023). There were no significant differences in reoperation rates following first-stage spacer placement (P = .752) and time to reimplantation (P = .127) between the groups. There were no significant differences in reinfection rates (RC group = 10.0%, AC group = 7.1%, P = 1.000) and reoperation rates following second-stage revision THA (RC group = 11.7%, AC group = 10.7%, P = 1.000). Hospital length of stay (in days) had a trend toward being shorter following the first (7.35 vs 11.96, P = .166) and second stage (3.95 vs 5.43, P = .107) for patients in the RC group. Patients in the RC group were more likely to be discharged home following the first (P = .020) and second (P = .039) stages. CONCLUSION: Given that there were no differences in reinfection and reoperation rates between the 2 spacer constructs, RC articulating spacers may provide a significant benefit for patient comfort during 2-stage exchange treatment of PJI while adding no increase in risk profile.