Is There a Role for Spacer Exchange in Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection?

Creative Commons License

Kozaily E., Chisari E., Parvizi J.

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, cilt.9, sa.9, ss.1-12, 2020 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Derleme
  • Cilt numarası: 9 Sayı: 9
  • Basım Tarihi: 2020
  • Doi Numarası: 10.3390/jcm9092901
  • Dergi Adı: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, EMBASE, Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.1-12
  • Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar Üniversitesi Adresli: Hayır

Özet

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) continues to be one of the most serious complications after hip and knee arthroplasty. The choice of surgical treatment depends on a multitude of factors like chronicity of infection, host factors, and institutional or surgeon experience. Two-stage exchange remains one of the most commonly used technique for chronic PJI in the United States of America. The intended two-stage revision may involve an additional interim procedure where the initial antibiotic cement spacer is removed and a new spacer is inserted. Mostly, the rationale behind spacer exchange is an additional load of local antibiotics before proceeding to reimplantation. There is no conclusive evidence whether a spacer exchange confers additional benefits, yet it delays reimplantation and exposes already fragile patients to the risks and morbidity of an additional surgery.