Periprosthetic infection remains one of the most serious complications following megaendoprostheses. Despite a large number of preventive measures that have been introduced in recent years, it has not been possible to further reduce the rate of periprosthetic infection. With regard to metallic modification of implants, silver in particular has been regarded as highly promising, since silver particles combine a high degree of antimicrobial activity with a low level of human toxicity. This review provides an overview of the history of the use of silver as an antimicrobial agent, its mechanism of action, and its clinical application in the field of megaendoprosthetics. The benefits of silver-coated prostheses could not be confirmed until now. However, a large number of retrospective studies suggest that the rate of periprosthetic infections could be reduced by using silver-coated megaprostheses.

BackgroundDespite very good prosthesis retention times, the growing numbers of primary implantations of hip endoprostheses are leading to increasing numbers of revision operations. Periprosthetic infection, particularly in revision implants, often leads to a massive loss of bone stock, so that in a two-stage exchange the only option left is implantation of a megaendoprosthesis. This retrospective study investigated the clinical and functional outcome for patients who received megaendoprostheses in the proximal femur in two-stage exchange procedures.MethodsForty-nine patients were treated between 1996 and 2014 (mean age 71 years, mean follow-up period 52 months). Microorganisms were isolated intraoperatively in 44 patients (89.9%). The reinfection rate was documented in patients who did not undergo any further revision surgery due to mechanical failure (primary) and in patients who had subsequent revisions after reimplantation and subsequent reinfection (secondary).ResultsThe mean C-reactive protein level at the time of reimplantation was 1.25 mg/dL (range 0.5–3.4). The primary success rate with curative treatment for prosthetic joint infection was 92% (four of 49 patients). The secondary success rate with infection revision cases was 82% (three of 17 revision cases). The mean Harris hip score was 69 (range 36–94). The majority of patients needed different types of walking aid or even wheelchairs, and only 50% of the patients were able to walk outside.ConclusionsReinfections occurred in only 8% of patients who underwent two-stage exchanges with a proximal femur replacement. When revision surgery for the proximal femur replacement was required for mechanical reasons, however, the associated reinfections increased the reinfection rate to 18%. Proximal femur replacement achieves a clear reduction in pain, maintenance of leg length, and restoration of limited mobility, and the procedure thus represents a clear alternative to the extensive Girdlestone procedure, which is even more immobilising, or mutilating amputation.

Purpose Megaprosthetic distal femoral reconstruction (DFR) is a limb-salvage procedure to address bone loss following two-stage revision for periprosthetic knee joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to analyze the survival of DFR compared to hinged total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It was hypothesized that DFR was associated with a poorer survival. Methods In this retrospective single-center study, 97 subjects who underwent two-stage revision of chronic knee PJI were included. Among these, 41 were DFR. The diagnosis of PJI was established using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. Implant survival was calculated using Kaplan–Meier method and compared with the log-rank test as well as multivariate Cox regression at a minimum follow-up period of 24 months. Results The median follow-up period was 59 (interquartile range (IQR) 45–78) months. Overall, 24% (23/97) of patients required revision surgery for infection. The infection-free survival of rotating hinge revision TKA was 93% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 86–100%) at five years compared to 50% (95% CI 34–66%) for DFR. In multivariate analysis, the risk factors for reinfection were DFR reconstruction (HR 4.7 (95% CI 1–22), p = 0.048), length of megaprosthesis (HR 1.006 (95% CI 1.001–1.012), p = 0.032) and higher BMI (HR 1.066, 95% CI 1.018–1.116), p = 0.007). 10% (4/41) of patients undergoing DFR underwent amputation to treat recurrent infection. Conclusion Megaprosthetic DFR as part of a two-stage exchange for PJI is a salvage treatment that has a high risk for reinfection compared to non-megaprosthetic TKA. Patients must therefore be counseled accordingly. Level of evidence Retrospective observational study, Level IV.

No abstract

BackgroundDue to the increasing numbers of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures being carried out, the frequency of major acetabular defects is also rising. A combination of an anti-protrusio cage and a dual mobility cup has been used in our department since 2007 in order to reduce the dislocation rate associated with complex defects. Although both implants have an important place in endoprosthetics, there are as yet limited data on the dislocation and complication rates with this combination.MethodsThis retrospective study included all patients in whom a Burch–Schneider cage and a dual mobility cup were implanted in our department between 2007 and 2014 and who had a minimum follow-up period of 24 months.ResultsThe study included 79 patients with a mean follow-up period of 5.3 years. The implant survival rate was 85% at 65 months. Postoperative dislocation occurred in two cases (2.1%), with the first dislocation taking place within the first 3 weeks in both of these patients.ConclusionsThe present study shows a promising dislocation rate with a combination of an anti-protrusio cage and a dual mobility cup. Particularly in the medium-term follow-up, no further dislocations occurred in the study. A maximum cup inclination of 45° in revision cases was associated with a lower dislocation rate in this group of patients.