Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 111–115 | Cite as

Two-stage cementless hip revision for peri-prosthetic infection with an antibacterial hydrogel coating: results of a comparative series

  • Luigi ZagraEmail author
  • Enrico Gallazzi
  • Delia Romanò
  • Sara Scarponi
  • Carlo Romanò
Original Paper
  • 85 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate the hypothesis that a two-stage exchange procedure, performed with an antibiotic-loaded, fast-resorbable hydrogel coating, may provide better infection cure rate than a two-stage procedure without the coating, in patients affected by peri-prosthetic hip infection.

Methods

In this case-control study, 27 patients, treated with a two-stage procedure, using cementless implants coated with an antibiotic-loaded hydrogel (DAC®, “Defensive Antibacterial Coating”), were compared with 27 matched controls, treated with a two-stage cementless revision procedure, without the coating.

Results

At a mean follow-up of 2.7 (minimum 2.1–maximum 3.5) years, no evidence of infection, implant loosening, or adverse events were observed in the DAC-treated group, compared to four cases of infection recurrence in the control group.

Conclusions

Although in a relatively limited series of patients our data show that cementless two-stage hip revision, performed with an antibacterial hydrogel coating, may provide better infection control than two-stage without the coating, with reduced hospitalization time, these findings warrant further studies in the possible applications of antibacterial coating technologies to treat implant-related infections.

Keywords

Antibacterial coatings DAC Peri-prosthetic joint infection Revision surgery Total hip replacement 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

The present study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki declaration and was approved by the local Ethical Committee (protocol IDAC-2013-THA/TKA—IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy).

Conflict of interests

LZ, EG, DR, SS have nothing to disclose related to this paper. CLR received consultant fees from Novagenit Srl.

References

  1. 1.
    Board NJRE (2017) National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. http://www.njrreports.org.uk/Portals/0/PDFdownloads/NJR%2014th%20Annual%20Report%202017.pdf. Accessed 07/12/2017 2017
  2. 2.
    Association AO (2016) Australian Arthroplasty Register. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2016
  3. 3.
    Haddad FS, George DA (2016) Can National Joint Registries play a role in improving our understanding of periprosthetic infections? Bone Joint J 98-b(3):289–290.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.98b3.37841 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gundtoft PH, Overgaard S, Schonheyder HC, Moller JK, Kjaersgaard-Andersen P, Pedersen AB (2015) The “true” incidence of surgically treated deep prosthetic joint infection after 32,896 primary total hip arthroplasties: a prospective cohort study. Acta Orthop 86(3):326–334.  https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2015.1011983 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kapadia BH, Berg RA, Daley JA, Fritz J, Bhave A, Mont MA (2016) Periprosthetic joint infection. Lancet (London, England) 387(10016):386–394.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61798-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gundtoft PH, Varnum C, Pedersen AB, Overgaard S (2016) The Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Clin Epidemiol 8:509–514.  https://doi.org/10.2147/clep.s99498 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    George DA, Logoluso N, Castellini G, Gianola S, Scarponi S, Haddad FS, Drago L, Romano CL (2016) Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review. BMC Infect Dis 16(1):553.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-016-1869-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yan Z, Fang R, Liu T (2018) Partial component-retained two-stage reconstruction for chronic infection after uncemented total hip arthroplasty: good or bad? Int Orthop 42(3):729–730.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3748-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Muhlhofer HML, Knebel C, Pohlig F, Feihl S, Harrasser N, Schauwecker J, von Eisenhart-Rothe R (2018) Synovial aspiration and serological testing in two-stage revision arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection: evaluation before reconstruction with a mean follow-up of twenty seven months. Int Orthop 42(2):265–271.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3700-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Romano CL, Scarponi S, Gallazzi E, Romano D, Drago L (2015) Antibacterial coating of implants in orthopaedics and trauma: a classification proposal in an evolving panorama. J Orthop Surg Res 10:157.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-015-0294-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Back DA, Bormann N, Calafi A, Zech J, Garbe LA, Muller M, Willy C, Schmidmaier G, Wildemann B (2016) Testing of antibiotic releasing implant coatings to fight bacteria in combat-associated osteomyelitis - an in-vitro study. Int Orthop 40(5):1039–1047.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3142-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Folsch C, Federmann M, Kuehn KD, Kittinger C, Kogler S, Zarfel G, Kerwat M, Braun S, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Paletta JR, Roessler PP (2015) Coating with a novel gentamicinpalmitate formulation prevents implant-associated osteomyelitis induced by methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus in a rat model. Int Orthop 39(5):981–988.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2582-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Drago L, Boot W, Dimas K, Malizos K, Hansch GM, Stuyck J, Gawlitta D, Romano CL (2014) Does implant coating with antibacterial-loaded hydrogel reduce bacterial colonization and biofilm formation in vitro? Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(11):3311–3323.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3558-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pitarresi G, Palumbo FS, Calascibetta F, Fiorica C, Di Stefano M, Giammona G (2013) Medicated hydrogels of hyaluronic acid derivatives for use in orthopedic field. Int J Pharm 449(1–2):84–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2013.03.059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Romano CL, Malizos K, Capuano N, Mezzoprete R, D'Arienzo M, Van Der Straeten C, Scarponi S, Drago L (2016) Does an antibiotic-loaded hydrogel coating reduce early post-surgical infection after joint arthroplasty? J Bone Jt Infect 1:34–41.  https://doi.org/10.7150/jbji.15986 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gristina AG, Naylor P, Myrvik Q (1988) Infections from biomaterials and implants: a race for the surface. Med Prog Technol 14(3–4):205–224Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parvizi J, Gehrke T (2014) Definition of periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplast 29(7):1331.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McPherson EJ, Woodson C, Holtom P, Roidis N, Shufelt C, Patzakis M (2002) Periprosthetic total hip infection: outcomes using a staging system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 403:8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Osmon DR, Berbari EF, Berendt AR, Lew D, Zimmerli W, Steckelberg JM, Rao N, Hanssen A, Wilson WR (2013) Executive summary: diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 56(1):1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cis966 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diaz-Ledezma C, Higuera CA, Parvizi J (2013) Success after treatment of periprosthetic joint infection: a Delphi-based international multidisciplinary consensus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(7):2374–2382.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2866-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP (1999) Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science (New York, NY) 284(5418):1318–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Foster TJ, Geoghegan JA, Ganesh VK, Hook M (2014) Adhesion, invasion and evasion: the many functions of the surface proteins of Staphylococcus aureus. Nat Rev Microbiol 12(1):49–62.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Inoue D, Kabata T, Ohtani K, Kajino Y, Shirai T, Tsuchiya H (2017) Inhibition of biofilm formation on iodine-supported titanium implants. Int Orthop 41(6):1093–1099.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3477-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kuehl R, Brunetto PS, Woischnig AK, Varisco M, Rajacic Z, Vosbeck J, Terracciano L, Fromm KM, Khanna N (2016) Preventing implant-associated infections by silver coating. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60(4):2467–2475.  https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.02934-15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wafa H, Grimer RJ, Reddy K, Jeys L, Abudu A, Carter SR, Tillman RM (2015) Retrospective evaluation of the incidence of early periprosthetic infection with silver-treated endoprostheses in high-risk patients: case-control study. Bone Joint J 97-b(2):252–257.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.97b2.34554 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zajonz D, Birke U, Ghanem M, Prietzel T, Josten C, Roth A, Fakler JKM (2017) Silver-coated modular Megaendoprostheses in salvage revision arthroplasty after periimplant infection with extensive bone loss – a pilot study of 34 patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1742-7
  27. 27.
    Mijnendonckx K, Leys N, Mahillon J, Silver S, Van Houdt R (2013) Antimicrobial silver: uses, toxicity and potential for resistance. Biometals 26(4):609–621.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10534-013-9645-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Amerstorfer F, Fischerauer S, Sadoghi P, Schwantzer G, Kuehn KD, Leithner A, Glehr M (2017) Superficial vancomycin coating of bone cement in orthopedic revision surgery: a safe technique to enhance local antibiotic concentrations. J Arthroplast 32(5):1618–1624.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.11.042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Otte JE, Politi JR, Chambers B, Smith CA (2017) Intrawound vancomycin powder reduces early prosthetic joint infections in revision hip and knee arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 30:284–289Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    van de Belt H, Neut D, Schenk W, van Horn JR, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ (2001) Infection of orthopedic implants and the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cements. A review. Acta Orthop Scand 72(6):557–571.  https://doi.org/10.1080/000164701317268978 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hip DepartmentIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico GaleazziMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Reconstructive Surgery of Osteo-articular InfectionsIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico GaleazziMilanItaly
  3. 3.Centro MedicoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations