Two-stage revision of infected shoulder arthroplasty using prosthesis of antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement: minimum three-year follow-up
- 372 Downloads
This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and persistent infection rate of two-stage revision of infected shoulder arthroplasty.
We enrolled 12 patients who developed an infection after undergoing shoulder arthroplasty between January 2009 and January 2014. They underwent a two-stage revision with PROSTALAC implantation and shoulder re-implantation in the first- and second-stage surgery, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 40.88 months (range, 36–52 months). After the second-stage re-implantation, clinical scores, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, as well as C-reactive protein level were evaluated, and the presence of re-infection and complications were analyzed.
Infection was improved in all the cases after PROSTALAC insertion. The mean range of motion of forward elevation, external rotation, and internal rotation at the final follow-up after the second-stage re-implantation were 81.67°, 40.42°, and 16.67° (vertebral level), respectively. The mean visual analog scale score improved from 7.08 points before surgery to 2.33 points after surgery. The Modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score improved from 32.25 before surgery to 64.17 after surgery (P < 0.05). The Constant shoulder score also improved from 30.92 before surgery to 66.08 after surgery (P < 0.05). Infection had not recurred until the final follow-up. However, dislocation and separation of components were found in two patients who needed a structural allograft because of segmental bone defects.
Using PROSTALAC in two-stage revision arthroplasty is effective for infection control and produced good clinical outcomes after second-stage shoulder re-implantation. However, cases involving segmental bone defects require additional precautions in maintaining the appropriate tension and height to prevent complications.
KeywordsShoulder arthroplasty Infected arthroplasty Two-stage surgery Prosthesis of antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement
This study was supported by a Wonkwang University research grant 2018.
There is no funding source.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Institutional review board approval was obtained before starting the study.
- 9.Hackett DJ Jr, Crosby LA (2013) Evaluation and treatment of the infected shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Joint Dis 71(Suppl 2):88–93Google Scholar
- 12.Jason E, Hsu, JE, Somerson KV, Matsen FA 3rd (2017) What is a periprosthetic shoulder infection? A systematic review of two decades of publications. Int Orthop 41(4):813–822. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3421-6
- 16.Lieberman JR, Callaway GH, Salvati EA, Pellicci PM, Brause BD (1994) Treatment of the infected total hip arthroplasty with a two-stage reimplantation protocol. Clin Orthop Relat Res 301:205–212Google Scholar
- 17.Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Huri G, Grassi A, Roberti di Sarsina T, Carbone G, Guerra E, McFarland EG, Doral MN, Marcacci M, Zaffagnini S (2017) Surgical treatment of infected shoulder arthroplasty. A systematic review. Int Orthop 41(4):823–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3399-0