抗生素骨水泥股骨头临时假体治疗髋关节置换术后感染

目的总结评估Ⅰ期清创后采用自制抗生素骨水泥股骨头假体控制感染,Ⅱ期翻修重建治疗人工髋关节置换术后感染的临床效果。方法自2006年1月至2010年11月共收治11例（12髋）髋关节置换术后感染患者,均采用Ⅱ期翻修。其中男7例8髋,女4例4髋。年龄29～80岁,平均60岁,术前Harris评分17～45分,平均（32±7.63）分。所有患者采用Ⅰ期取出假体,彻底清创,置入自制抗生素骨水泥股骨头假体,间隔4～20个月（平均12个月）,待血沉、C反应蛋白、血白细胞计数正常,伤口局部无感染表现后,行Ⅱ期翻修重建。结果本组患者切口均I期愈合,无伤口并发症发生。所有患者均获得随访,随访时间6～40个月,平均20个月。所有病例在随访时感染均没有复发,感染控制率100%。。患者髋关节疼痛和关节功能均有明显改善。随访时Harris评分65～96分,平均（87±7.72）分,与术前比较有统计学差异（t=38.81,P〈0.01）。结论Ⅰ期清创后用抗生素骨水泥股骨头假体可有效控制髋关节置换术后感染,减少肢体短缩;Ⅱ期翻修重建手术可根据患者的情况选择骨水泥或非骨水泥假体,均可取得良好的临床疗效。     

定制抗生素骨水泥临时假体在人工髋关节置换术后感染二期翻修中的应用

目的报道应用定制抗生素骨水泥临时假体治疗人工髋关节置换术后感染的手术疗效。方法16例取出人工髋关节假体彻底清创后,放置形状及大小与髋臼及股骨髓腔大小相匹配的抗生素骨水泥临时假体,术后定期复查C反应蛋白和血沉,待结果正常后二期行人工髋关节翻修术。结果抗生素骨水泥临时假体充填后,患者伤口均愈合,1~2周后可扶双拐不负重活动,术后无一例发生骨水泥临时假体断裂及脱位,双下肢长度基本对称,二期翻修时抗生素骨水泥假体均可顺利取出。术后人工关节无一例感染复发、松动及下沉,Harris评分平均81分。结论定制抗生素骨水泥临时假体对感染的人工髋关节进行二期翻修,方法可靠,术后复发率低,能有效地克服髋周软组织挛缩,最大限度地保留下肢功能。     

二期翻修在人工髋关节置换术后感染治疗中的作用

[目的]探讨二期翻修手术在治疗人工髋关节置换术后感染的有效性、第二期翻修时假体的选择及异体骨植骨的可行性。[方法]运用二期翻修术治疗了24例(25髋)髋关节置换术后感染患者,9例采用灌注冲洗型占位器,16例采用抗生素骨水泥占位器。第二期重建时,16例采用生物固定髋臼,其中7例结合使用异体颗粒植骨;9例采用打压植骨技术。1例采用抗生素骨水泥固定假体;8例采用远端固定非骨水泥假体,其中4例结合使用异体支撑植骨;16例采用打压植骨技术。应用X线片及Harris评分进行评价。[结果]所有患者均获得随访,平均随访时间26.3个月(3~57个月),Harris评分从术前平均47.9分,提高到最后随访时的平均86.7分,患者满意率为92%。在最后随访时没有感染复发的病例。[结论]二期翻修手术是治疗人工髋关节置换术后感染的有效方法,临时占位器起到至关重要的作用,使用抗生素骨水泥占位器有控制感染效果好、术后抗生素使用时间短及术后不用灌注的优点。在第二期翻修重建时可以使用非骨水泥假体,并且可以同时进行异体骨植骨。     

临时占位器在治疗髋关节置换术后感染伴窦道形成中的应用

目的探讨髋关节置换术后感染伴窦道形成的治疗方法。方法 12例(13髋)髋关节置换术后感染伴窦道形成患者,术前Harris评分平均30(23~38)分,血沉平均54(38~74)mm/h。根据Fitizgerald全髋关节置换术后感染分期,2例为Ⅰ期感染,8例为Ⅱ期感染,2例为Ⅲ期感染。12例均行一期清创、假体取出、占位器植入手术,二期行翻修术10例,因经济原因放弃二期翻修2例。结果平均随访19(3~30)个月,10例翻修术前Harris评分平均74.6(69~89)分,较术前有明显提高(P0.05)。术后血沉平均10(6~17)mm/h,CRP降至正常范围,感染无复发。结论临时占位器治疗髋关节置换术后感染伴窦道形成方法可靠,术后复发率低,能有效克服髋周组织的挛缩。     

二期翻修治疗人工全髋关节置换术后感染的中期疗效评估

目的对全髋关节置换术后感染行二期翻修术治疗的患者进行中期的随访,并进行疗效评估。方法自2004年1月～2007年12月,本组采用二期翻修术治疗人工髋关节术后感染22例（22髋）。一期手术彻底清创,取出感染假体,置入抗生素骨水泥间隔器;二期手术植入骨水泥型或非骨水泥型假体。以感染复发率、疼痛评分（VAS评分）、髋关节功能评分（Harris评分）评估术后疗效。结果平均随访周期为（6．6±1．8）年（5～8年）,22例患者均未发现感染复发、假体松动和脱位等。治疗前VAS评分平均为7．2分（5—9．1分）,一期手术后VAS评分平均为3．8分（1．2～5．3分）,最后一次随访时VAS评分平均为1．2分（0—3．2分）。治疗前Harris评分平均为36．4分（20～49分）,一期手术后Harris评分平均为56．3分（40～66分）,最后随访时Harris评分平均为84．2分（72—93分）。结论使用抗生素骨水泥间隔器二期翻修术中期随访控制感染效果显著,为全髋置换术后感染提供了有效治疗途径。     

髋关节置换术后感染的手术治疗

目的探讨Ⅰ期翻修治疗髋关节置换术后感染的临床疗效。方法通过对8例髋关节术后感染病例的临床表现、实验室检查、影像学检查、关节穿刺培养及术中病灶组织涂片及培养等综合分析,明确诊断为人工髋关节置换术后感染。该组所有患者均采用I期清创,假体取出,自制抗生素骨水泥支架旷置,Ⅱ期行清创,髋关节翻修置换术并结合抗感染治疗。结果所有患者均获20.5个月(5～52个月)随访,感染均未复发,血沉、C反应蛋白皆恢复正常,局部无红肿压痛。7例患者关节功能基本恢复正常,1例患者关节活动稍受限但不影响日常行走。按Harris关节评分标准进行疗效评定,Harris评分由术前(30.18±6.0)分提高到术后(87.5±3.5)分。术后6个月、1年X线片示假体固定可靠。结论髋关节置换术后感染,只要诊断明确,处理得当,经严格的I期清创后采用抗菌药物骨水泥临时支架旷置,二期清创、关节置换,可获得满意疗效。     

初次髋关节置换术后早期感染的手术治疗体会

目的探讨初次人工髋关节置换术后假体周围早期感染的手术治疗经验及其效果。方法本组9例初次人工髋关节置换术后假体周围早期感染,关节穿刺做为主要诊疗手段。确定感染的患者尽快根据药敏结果抗生素治疗。抗生素治疗一周效果不佳者、局部脓肿和窦道形成者及穿刺抽出脓液者尽快手术。感染4周内者以抗生素＋清创＋闭式灌洗术式为主,超过4周者行一期翻修。1例清创失败者取出假体旷置后二期翻修。所有患者于术后1、3、6、12个月和以后每年复诊,随访时间2452个月,平均37个月。内容包括Harris髋关节功能评分、X线评估、血沉和CRP的复查。结果 9例患者均恢复良好,局部症状消失。体温、C反应蛋白、血沉及周围血象均恢复正常,关节功能得到恢复。末次随访时均未见感染复发,髋关节Harris评分由术前平均44.6分（2466分）提高到术后的平均85.3分（7194分）。结论初次人工髋关节置换术后假体周围早期感染国内外文献报告均较少,仅能得出较初步的经验。术前关节腔穿刺及术中菌培养对诊断及治疗极有帮助。在对患者的临床表现和各项检查结果进行综合评价的基础上,如有把握清创彻底,抗生素治疗得当,可考虑先行一期保留假体清创或取出假体翻修手术。     

初次人工髋关节置换术后感染的诊断与治疗

目的探讨初次人工髋关节置换术后感染的诊断和治疗方法。方法回顾性分析1998年1月至2004年3月收治的10例初次人工髋关节置换术后感染的病例,其中男4例,女6例,平均68岁(55~85岁)。本院感染5例,外院感染5例。10例患者均有患髋疼痛症状,4例有窦道,6例血沉增快,9例C-反应蛋白增高。术前窦道分泌物细菌培养,3例阳性,1例阴性。无窦道者术前行关节穿刺,细菌培养,3例阳性,3例阴性。4例细菌培养阴性者,术中取标本培养仍为阴性。所有患者X线片有骨溶解、假体松动及反应骨形成等表现。治疗包括:保留假体清创2例;一期翻修4例,其中普通骨水泥固定2例,抗生素骨水泥固定2例;二期翻修4例,取出假体,彻底清创,放置抗生素骨水泥团制备的临时假体间隔器,感染控制后,安放抗生素骨水泥固定的假体。结果2例保留假体清创者,术后感染复发,后改为取出假体旷置,二期翻修,术后未见感染复发。4例一期翻修者,其中2例抗生素骨水泥固定,术后未见感染复发,2例普通骨水泥固定,术后感染复发,后改为取出假体旷置,二期翻修,术后感染未见复发。4例二期翻修者,抗生素骨水泥固定,术后未见感染复发。所有患者均获随访,随访时间12~48个月,平均25个月,末次随访时,10例患者均未见感染复发。结论初次人工髋关节置换术后感染的诊断和治疗均很困难,目前尚无特异性检查方法,需要对患者所有的临床资料进行综合分析,才能做出正确的诊断,治疗方法选择应根据具体情况而定,以二期翻修较为理想。使用抗生素骨水泥固定可以提高控制感染的成功率。     

人工全髋关节翻修术治疗假体置换术后感染

目的:探讨全髋关节置换术后假体周围感染的治疗方法。方法:1998年1月～2002年6月共收治7例全髋关节置换术后感染患者。采用一期全髋关节翻修术3例,二期全髋关节翻修术4例,术后平均随访14个月。结果:患者髋关节评分平均提高37.6分(Harris评分),经随访无一例感染患者复发。结论:人工全髋关节置换术后感染患者经过彻底清创和使用有效抗生素治疗后,可一期或二期进行全髋关节翻修术,治疗假体周围感染,改善患肢关节功能。     

人工全髋关节翻修术治疗假体置换术后感染

目的:探讨全髋关节置换术后假体周围感染的治疗方法.方法:1998年1月～2002年6月共收治7例全髋关节置换术后感染患者.采用一期全髋关节翻修术3例,二期全髋关节翻修术4例,术后平均随访14个月.结果:患者髋关节评分平均提高37.6分(Harris评分),经随访无一例感染患者复发.结论:人工全髋关节置换术后感染患者经过彻底清创和使用有效抗生素治疗后,可一期或二期进行全髋关节翻修术,治疗假体周围感染,改善患肢关节功能.     

Implications of the changing pattern of bacterial infections following total joint replacements

PURPOSE: To retrospectively review the causative organisms isolated from infected hip and knee replacements requiring revision. METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of 36 patients who underwent revision hip or knee arthroplasties due to bacterial infection at Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital in Hong Kong between 1995 and 2003. The male to female ratio was 1:2, and the mean age of patients was 70 years (range, 54-82 years). The mean duration of follow-up was 3.8 years (range, 1.1-8.3 years). No patient was lost to follow-up. All 14 revision knee patients had previously undergone cemented and patella-resurfacing total knee arthroplasties. Of the 22 revision hip patients, 9 had cementless, 6 had cemented, and 7 had hybrid total hip arthroplasties previously. RESULTS: None of the bacteria isolated from 1995 to 1996 were multiple-drug resistant. Subsequently, however, most of the isolates were multiple-drug resistant, with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) being the most common. Half of the isolates of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Escherichia coli demonstrated multiple-drug resistance. The incidence of positive culture in revision hip patients was 59%, 46% of which were MRSA. All 13 revision hips with positive cultures showed chronic sepsis: 4 occurred within one year and 10 occurred 2 or more years after the index arthroplasty. The incidence of positive culture in revision knee patients was 57%, 46% of which were MRSA. All 8 revision knees with positive cultures showed chronic sepsis: 3 occurred within one year, 5 occurred 2 or more years after the index arthroplasty. Only one patient, who was infected with gram-negative bacilli, required a second revision for residual sepsis. Harris hip scores for the revision hip patients improved from a mean of 65 (range, 55-75) to 85 (range, 75-90). Knee Society knee scores of the revision knee patients improved from a mean of 68 (range, 55-75) to 80 (range, 70-85). There were no radiological signs suggestive of loosening in the 2 groups at the latest follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study found a definite increase in multiple-drug-resistant bacteria isolated from periprosthetic infections around total hip and knee prostheses.     

Cementless two-stage exchange arthroplasty for infection after total hip arthroplasty

We retrospectively reviewed all patients at one center with an infected total hip arthroplasty treated with 2-stage revision using cementless components for the second stage and the PROSTALAC articulated spacer at the first stage. Twenty-nine patients were reviewed and followed for at least 2 years postoperatively. An isolated Staphylococcus species was cultured in 76% (22/29) of patients. Three (10.3%) of 29 patients had recurrent infection at the site of the prosthesis. One of the 3 patients ultimately underwent a Girdlestone arthroplasty. Another patient was managed with irrigation and debridement, whereas the final patient was treated with intravenous antibiotics alone. Treatment of infection at the site of a hip arthroplasty with 2-stage revision using cementless components and an articulated spacer yields recurrence rates similar to revisions where at least one of the components at the second stage is fixed with antibiotic-loaded cement.     

采用抗生素骨水泥假体二期翻修治疗人工髋关节感染

目的探讨采用抗生素骨水泥假体二期翻修治疗人工髋关节感染的疗效。方法自1999年6月至2004年10月,14例初次髋关节置换术后感染患者行二期手术。术前Harris评分平均23分。一期手术中将取出的假体彻底清洗,骨水泥垫临时旷置,关节内引流管引流,术后静脉输入抗生素3周后,改为口服抗生素1个月。二期手术于6个月后进行,植入带抗生素骨水泥型假体。结果14例患者均获得随访,随访时间7～26个月,平均18个月。14例患者术后均无感染复发。术后Harris评分平均70分。结论彻底清创、足够间隔期以及二期手术采用抗生素骨水泥假体是有效控制感染复发的有效措施。     

未使用占位器的二期翻修治疗髋关节置换术后感染

目的探讨不使用占位器的二期翻修治疗髋关节置换术后假体周围感染的临床效果。 方法从2009年8月至2017年12月期间,对在西安交通大学第二附属医院接受未使用占位器的二期髋关节翻修治疗的21位既往行人工髋关节置换术后感染的患者(其中男性6例,女性15例,年龄28～78岁)进行随访观察。该组患者均采用一期手术取出髋关节假体旷置(未置放占位器),待临床表现及血液中相关炎性指标降至正常时再进行二期翻修,应用配对t检验以及Wilcoxon秩和检验分别评估患者术前术后的髋关节Harris评分及患肢缩短水平。 结果21例患者术后随访(4.0±2.8)年,术后的末次随访时髋关节Harris评分为(86±4)分,与翻修术前的(48±5)相比,有显著性差异(t ＝ 25.509,P< 0.01),术后患肢短缩为0.1 cm(－0.20, 0.35)cm(负值代表患侧肢体较健侧增加的长度),与术前4.3 cm(3.85,4.90) cm相比,有显著性差异(Z＝－4.016, P < 0.01),术后1例出现再次感染。 结论不使用占位器的二期翻修术治疗髋关节假体周围感染具有较高的感染控制率,同时也不会因为髋关节局部软组织挛缩而引起患肢的明显缩短,可以获得良好的术后髋关节功能。     

Long-term clinical results of cemented revision of primary cemented total hip arthroplasties

Seventy-six patients who had undergone revision of a cemented total hip replacement were reviewed with an average follow-up of almost ten years. The average age at primary total hip replacement (PTHR) was 63.3 years. The average time between primary total hip replacement and revision was 62.5 months. Revision surgery was performed without using special techniques such as acetabulum reconstruction or femoral bone grafting. We evaluated patients pre- and postoperatively using the Merle d'Aubigné-Postel(M d'A) hip score. Clinically we observed an improvement of the hip score after total hip revision, particularly regarding pain. Thirty hips required a second, and six a third revision. If re-revision is used as an end-point, our results are unsatisfactory, as we had a cumulative failure rate of 54% after 12 years. This is mainly due to not using special techniques adapted to revision situations.     

Treatment of infected hip arthroplasty with antibiotic-impregnated calcium hydroxyapatite

We reviewed the treatment of infected hip arthroplasty with antibiotic-impregnated calcium hydroxyapatite (CHA) ceramic blocks. Seven consecutive patients consisting of 2 men and 5 women with an average age of 65 years were followed up for an average of 5.0 years. All patients received resection arthroplasty and thorough debridement, followed by implantation of antibiotic-impregnated CHA ceramic. Two-stage revision was performed in all patients. There was no evidence of a recurrent infection in 6 patients. The remaining one patient underwent an additional debridement 2 years after the second stage. This patient was free of infection at the time of the latest follow-up. Antibiotic-impregnated CHA ceramic is thus considered to be an excellent drug delivery system for the infected hip arthroplasty.     

Surgical treatment of limb-length discrepancy following total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: Although most patients with limb-length discrepancy following total hip arthroplasty have manageable symptoms, others may be disabled as a result of pain or functional impairment. In these patients, reoperation may be indicated to equalize the limb lengths. There is a paucity of published data regarding the outcome of surgical intervention to treat this problem. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the results of revision hip surgery for the treatment of symptomatic limb-length discrepancy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical and radiographic records of patients who had undergone revision hip surgery at our institution for the treatment of a symptomatic limb-length discrepancy following a previous total hip arthroplasty. We identified twenty-one patients (twenty-one hips) who had an average age of sixty-six years at the time of revision hip arthroplasty. The average duration of follow-up was 2.8 years, and no patient was lost to follow-up. The indications for revision hip arthroplasty were severe hip and/or back pain for eleven patients, instability of the hip for eight, hip pain and ipsilateral limb paresthesia for one, and hip pain and ipsilateral foot drop for one. RESULTS: Revision arthroplasty was performed at a mean of eight months (range, six days to six years) after primary total hip replacement. The mean limb-length discrepancy at the time of the revision was 4 cm (range, 2 to 7 cm). Following revision arthroplasty, which involved revision of a malpositioned acetabular and/or femoral component, equalization of the limb lengths was achieved in fifteen patients. In the remaining six patients, the mean discrepancy had decreased to 1 cm. The mean Harris hip score improved significantly, from 56.5 points before the revision to 83.2 points at the time of the latest follow-up (p < 0.005). All but two patients were satisfied with the outcome of the revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Limb-length discrepancy following hip arthroplasty can be associated with pain, paresthesia, and hip instability. In these patients, careful evaluation of the position and orientation of the components may reveal the cause of the discrepancy. Revision arthroplasty may be indicated when a surgically correctable cause of limb-length discrepancy can be identified.     

Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Survey

A survey of revision hip arthroplasties was performed, using a retrospective review of the patients' case notes and radiographs, and an assessment of the patients, at least 1 year after the revision. The patients were divided into three categories: a) First revision hip arthroplasty (41 patients); b) Second revision hip arthroplasty (8 patients); c) Revision of femoral hemi-arthroplasty (14 patients). The reasons for revision, the type of revision and the final outcome have been identified in each group. This is the first study which allows direct comparison of the final outcome, as assessed by accurate objective criteria, between patients having revision hip arthroplasty for different reasons. Radiographs of the hip arthroplasty after the original operation and after revision have been analysed.

The final outcome of first revision hip arthroplasty and revision of hemi-arthroplasty to total hip replacement was generally good. The outcome of second revision hip arthroplasty was generally poor.     

Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Survey

A survey of revision hip arthroplasties was performed, using a retrospective review of the patients' case notes and radiographs, and an assessment of the patients, at least 1 year after the revision. The patients were divided into three categories: a) First revision hip arthroplasty (41 patients); b) Second revision hip arthroplasty (8 patients); c) Revision of femoral hemi-arthroplasty (14 patients). The reasons for revision, the type of revision and the final outcome have been identified in each group. This is the first study which allows direct comparison of the final outcome, as assessed by accurate objective criteria, between patients having revision hip arthroplasty for different reasons. Radiographs of the hip arthroplasty after the original operation and after revision have been analysed.

The final outcome of first revision hip arthroplasty and revision of hemi-arthroplasty to total hip replacement was generally good. The outcome of second revision hip arthroplasty was generally poor.     

Single-stage Acetabular Revision During Two-stage THA Revision for Infection is Effective in Selected Patients

Background

The treatment of periprosthetic infections of hip arthroplasties typically involves use of either a single- or two-stage (with implantation of a temporary spacer) revision surgery. In patients with severe acetabular bone deficiencies, either already present or after component removal, spacers cannot be safely implanted. In such hips where it is impossible to use spacers and yet a two-stage revision of the prosthetic stem is recommended, we have combined a two-stage revision of the stem with a single revision of the cup. To our knowledge, this approach has not been reported before.

Questions/purposes

(1) What proportion of patients treated with single-stage acetabular reconstruction as part of a two-stage revision for an infected THA remain free from infection at 2 or more years? (2) What are the Harris hip scores after the first stage and at 2 years or more after the definitive reimplantation?

Methods

Between June 2009 and June 2014, we treated all patients undergoing surgical treatment for an infected THA using a single-stage acetabular revision as part of a two-stage THA exchange if the acetabular defect classification was Paprosky Types 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, or pelvic discontinuity and a two-stage procedure was preferred for the femur. The procedure included removal of all components, joint débridement, definitive acetabular reconstruction (with a cage to bridge the defect, and a cemented socket), and a temporary cemented femoral component at the first stage; the second stage consisted of repeat joint and femoral débridement and exchange of the femoral component to a cementless device. During the period noted, 35 patients met those definitions and were treated with this approach. No patients were lost to followup before 2 years; mean followup was 42 months (range, 24–84 months). The clinical evaluation was performed with the Harris hip scores and resolution of infection was assessed by the absence of clinical signs of infection and a C-reactive protein level less than 10 mg/L. All patients were assessed before surgery, between stages, every 3 months during the first year after surgery, every 6 months during the second year postoperative, and at latest followup, and were retrospectively drawn from a longitudinally maintained institutional database.

Results

Thirty-four of 35 patients (97.2%; 95% CI, 85.4%-99.5%) appeared free of infection by criteria of Masri et al. and Zimmerli et al. at latest followup. The Harris hip score was 61 ± 13 points after the first operation and 82 ± 16 points 2 years after the second operation.

Conclusions

This technique is a promising treatment option for periprosthetic infections of the hip in which substantial acetabular defects exclude implantation of a normal spacer and a two-stage revision of the femoral component is favored.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study.