This website uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience, improve site performance, and gather analytics. By selecting 'Accept,' you consent to these cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.

Logo

Study of Antibiotic Spacer Design to Treat Infection After Hip Replacement

Sponsored by Rush University Medical Center

About this trial

Last updated 6 years ago

Study ID

SPACERHIP

Status

Completed

Type

Interventional

Phase

N/A

Placebo

No

Accepting

18 to 100 Years
All Sexes

Trial Timing

Ended 6 years ago

What is this trial about?

Infection remains one of the most difficult-to-treat complications of total hip arthroplasty. The gold standard treatment is two-stage removal of the prosthesis with later replacement of permanent implants.The first stage consists of removal of the infected arthroplasty components and the surrounding devitalized tissue, copious pulsed irrigation, and placement of a temporary antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer. This spacer is typically left in place six weeks, during which time the patient receives intravenous antibiotics. After the surgeon feels that the infection has been eradicated, or if a second debridement is required, a second operative procedure is performed. While the use of an antibiotic spacer is well accepted, whether the spacer should immobilize the hip (a so-called "static" spacer) or allow for range of motion (a so-called "articulating" spacer) is controversial. Proponents of static spacers argue that immobilization of the periarticular soft tissues aids in clearance of the infection and that these spacers are simpler to fashion intraoperatively. Proponents of articulating spacers argue that they improve hip function, prevent damage to the musculature surrounding the hip, allow easier reimplantation, improve hip function, and prevent dislocation following hip reimplantation. While good results have been described with both methods, comparative trials have been conflicting as to whether spacer design alters hip function, operative time, and dislocation rates. Equipoise exists within the literature, and no randomized clinical trial has been conducted to evaluate this issue. The purpose of this study is to compare articulating and static antibiotic-impregnated spacers for the treatment of chronic periprosthetic infection complicating total hip arthroplasty through a prospective, randomized clinical trial. The goals of this trial are to determine the effect of spacer design upon eradication of infection, hip function, ease of reimplantation, and dislocation rates. The investigators hypothesize that articulating spacers will provide shorter operative times at replantation while improving hip function and hip dislocation rates following hip reimplantation.

What are the participation requirements?

Inclusion Criteria

1) Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection of a primary total hip arthroplasty with a planned two-stage exchange procedure.

Exclusion Criteria

1. Infection of a revision as opposed to a primary total hip arthroplasty 2. Medically unfit for operative intervention 3. Extensive bone loss preventing the use of an articulating spacer 4. Soft-tissue defects that prevent the use of an articulating spacer 5. Known allergy to polymethylmethacrylate, tobramycin or vancomycin.