↓ Skip to main content

Two-stage revision of prosthetic hip joint infections using antibiotic-loaded cement spacers: When is the best time to perform the second stage?

Overview of attention for article published in International Orthopaedics, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Two-stage revision of prosthetic hip joint infections using antibiotic-loaded cement spacers: When is the best time to perform the second stage?
Published in
International Orthopaedics, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00264-015-2751-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ines Vielgut, Patrick Sadoghi, Matthias Wolf, Lukas Holzer, Andreas Leithner, Gerold Schwantzer, Rudolf Poolman, Bernhard Frankl, Mathias Glehr

Abstract

Managing periprosthetic joint infections remains a challenging task, and adequate treatment strategies seem to be mandatory to avoid irreversible damage of the affected joint and/or systemic complications. Two-stage revision arthroplasty includes removing all implants and subsequent implantation of an antibiotic-loaded cement spacer, followed by revision arthroplasty as the second stage. Although this procedure is well described in the literature, results remain unpredictable due to various clinical findings and the absence of prospective randomised trials. We analysed (1) mortality and (2) reinfection rates in a series of patients who underwent two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic hip joint infections with antibiotic-augmented joint spacers. We maintained a special focus on the spacer retention period and its influence on outcome in order to determine the best time for second-stage surgery. A consecutive series of 76 patients with native and periprosthetic hip joint infections and who underwent two-stage revision surgery with antibiotic-loaded cement spacers were studied between 2005 and 2010. The second-stage operation was performed when it was assumed that infection was eradicated. The further operative procedure depended upon intra-operative findings (frozen section, local status). Mean implant-free period with the antibiotic-loaded spacer in situ was 12.6 weeks. Spacer re-implantation was necessary in 13 cases due to positive signs of acute infection in the frozen section and suspect intra-operative findings. Eight patients were not operated for a second time in the investigated time period due to poor general condition. In 40 patients, the spacer retention period was four to 11 weeks: <four weeks for five and >11 weeks for 23. We observed a significantly higher proportion of women free from reinfection in the four to 11-week group than in patients with the shorter or longer period. According to our findings, the optimal timing for second-stage surgery as a second-stage procedure is between four and 11 weeks. A significantly optimal reinfection rate was seen in patients undergoing revision arthroplasty within that time frame, and 90 % of those patients remained infection free until final follow-up.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Lebanon 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Student > Master 6 9%
Other 5 7%
Other 17 25%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 52%
Unspecified 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Linguistics 1 1%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 16 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 April 2015.
All research outputs
#18,410,971
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from International Orthopaedics
#1,069
of 1,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,000
of 264,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Orthopaedics
#22
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,427 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,354 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.