Two‐Stage Revision Hip Arthroplasty with or without the Use of an Interim Spacer for Managing Late Prosthetic Infection: A Systematic Review of the Literature

The aim of the present paper was to identify, appraise, and synthesize the available evidence on two‐stage revision hip arthroplasty with or without the use of an interim spacer for managing late prosthetic infection. The review methodology was designed by referencing the Preferred Reporting Items f...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Angshuman Khanna, Bernie Carter, Inder Gill
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2021-04-01
Series:Orthopaedic Surgery
Subjects:
Hip
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12875
id doaj-7812b441c5c84cd3a77f7136e12d407e
record_format Article
spelling doaj-7812b441c5c84cd3a77f7136e12d407e2021-03-15T09:03:01ZengWileyOrthopaedic Surgery1757-78531757-78612021-04-0113238439410.1111/os.12875Two‐Stage Revision Hip Arthroplasty with or without the Use of an Interim Spacer for Managing Late Prosthetic Infection: A Systematic Review of the LiteratureAngshuman Khanna0Bernie Carter1Inder Gill2Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust Salford UKFaculty of Health Social Care and Medicine, Edge Hill University Ormskirk UKDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust Salford UKThe aim of the present paper was to identify, appraise, and synthesize the available evidence on two‐stage revision hip arthroplasty with or without the use of an interim spacer for managing late prosthetic infection. The review methodology was designed by referencing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) checklist and flow diagram, and a Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes and Study (PICOS) design framework was used to search for studies to incorporate within the review. Two independent investigators were involved in searching for relevant articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the study. Critical appraisal of the selected articles was carried out using the relevant Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists. From an initial pool of 125 articles, four studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and quality assessment and were included for final review. Two patient groups were identified from within the selected studies: spacer and non‐spacer. Both groups were assessed in terms of functional outcome, infection cure rates, and technical difficulties encountered during treatment. Better functional outcome was reported in the spacer group, both in the interim period between the two stages and after completion of treatment. The use of spacers reduced operative difficulty during the second stage and accelerated patient discharge. Reinfection and infection persistence rates were higher in the non‐spacer group. Within the spacer group, articulated spacers performed better in all parameters. The results of this review reinforce the available evidence supporting the use of interim hip spacers in revision hip arthroplasty for managing prosthetic infection and also indicate that articulated hip spacers could be an attractive option going forward.https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12875ArthroplastyHipInfectionRevision
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Angshuman Khanna
Bernie Carter
Inder Gill
spellingShingle Angshuman Khanna
Bernie Carter
Inder Gill
Two‐Stage Revision Hip Arthroplasty with or without the Use of an Interim Spacer for Managing Late Prosthetic Infection: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Orthopaedic Surgery
Arthroplasty
Hip
Infection
Revision
author_facet Angshuman Khanna
Bernie Carter
Inder Gill
author_sort Angshuman Khanna
title Two‐Stage Revision Hip Arthroplasty with or without the Use of an Interim Spacer for Managing Late Prosthetic Infection: A Systematic Review of the Literature
title_short Two‐Stage Revision Hip Arthroplasty with or without the Use of an Interim Spacer for Managing Late Prosthetic Infection: A Systematic Review of the Literature
title_full Two‐Stage Revision Hip Arthroplasty with or without the Use of an Interim Spacer for Managing Late Prosthetic Infection: A Systematic Review of the Literature
title_fullStr Two‐Stage Revision Hip Arthroplasty with or without the Use of an Interim Spacer for Managing Late Prosthetic Infection: A Systematic Review of the Literature
title_full_unstemmed Two‐Stage Revision Hip Arthroplasty with or without the Use of an Interim Spacer for Managing Late Prosthetic Infection: A Systematic Review of the Literature
title_sort two‐stage revision hip arthroplasty with or without the use of an interim spacer for managing late prosthetic infection: a systematic review of the literature
publisher Wiley
series Orthopaedic Surgery
issn 1757-7853
1757-7861
publishDate 2021-04-01
description The aim of the present paper was to identify, appraise, and synthesize the available evidence on two‐stage revision hip arthroplasty with or without the use of an interim spacer for managing late prosthetic infection. The review methodology was designed by referencing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) checklist and flow diagram, and a Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes and Study (PICOS) design framework was used to search for studies to incorporate within the review. Two independent investigators were involved in searching for relevant articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the study. Critical appraisal of the selected articles was carried out using the relevant Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists. From an initial pool of 125 articles, four studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and quality assessment and were included for final review. Two patient groups were identified from within the selected studies: spacer and non‐spacer. Both groups were assessed in terms of functional outcome, infection cure rates, and technical difficulties encountered during treatment. Better functional outcome was reported in the spacer group, both in the interim period between the two stages and after completion of treatment. The use of spacers reduced operative difficulty during the second stage and accelerated patient discharge. Reinfection and infection persistence rates were higher in the non‐spacer group. Within the spacer group, articulated spacers performed better in all parameters. The results of this review reinforce the available evidence supporting the use of interim hip spacers in revision hip arthroplasty for managing prosthetic infection and also indicate that articulated hip spacers could be an attractive option going forward.
topic Arthroplasty
Hip
Infection
Revision
url https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12875
work_keys_str_mv AT angshumankhanna twostagerevisionhiparthroplastywithorwithouttheuseofaninterimspacerformanaginglateprostheticinfectionasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT berniecarter twostagerevisionhiparthroplastywithorwithouttheuseofaninterimspacerformanaginglateprostheticinfectionasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT indergill twostagerevisionhiparthroplastywithorwithouttheuseofaninterimspacerformanaginglateprostheticinfectionasystematicreviewoftheliterature
_version_ 1724220746175086592