Introduction: We aim to evaluate the use of silver (PorAg®) coated compared to uncoated prosthesis in two-stage revision for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of distal femur and proximal tibia megaprosthesis in oncological patients. Materials and methods: In total, 68 patients were retrospectively evaluated. Median age was 30 years (range 14–83). In total, 29 patients were re-implanted with PorAg® prosthesis and 39 with uncoated prosthesis (Megasystem C®, Waldemar Link GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg, Germany). All patients had PJI confirmed according to Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. In 10 cases, no microorganism was identified at the time of first-stage revision, but all had a sinus communicating with the prosthesis. Successful eradication of the infection was defined by the absence of clinical/serologic evidence of infection at 6 months after the second stage or at latest follow-up. Infection was again defined according to the MSIS criteria. Results: At 3-year follow-up, estimated reinfection rate in the silver group was slightly lower than in uncoated EPR (10.3% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.104). Among reinfected patients, only one out of three patients (33%) in the silver group required an amputation compared to 80% in the nonsilver group (p = 0.047). Conclusions: Our results show the efficacy of PorAg® coating in the two-stage revision of knee EPR. PorAg®-coated EPR may have possible advantages over this traditional strategy, in particular when applied to patients with a higher risk of reinfection.

Silver-coated (PorAg®) endoprosthesis can be protective against reinfection in the treatment of tumor prostheses infection

Sambri A.
;
Zucchini R.;Giannini C.;Viale P.;Donati D. M.;
2020

Abstract

Introduction: We aim to evaluate the use of silver (PorAg®) coated compared to uncoated prosthesis in two-stage revision for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of distal femur and proximal tibia megaprosthesis in oncological patients. Materials and methods: In total, 68 patients were retrospectively evaluated. Median age was 30 years (range 14–83). In total, 29 patients were re-implanted with PorAg® prosthesis and 39 with uncoated prosthesis (Megasystem C®, Waldemar Link GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg, Germany). All patients had PJI confirmed according to Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. In 10 cases, no microorganism was identified at the time of first-stage revision, but all had a sinus communicating with the prosthesis. Successful eradication of the infection was defined by the absence of clinical/serologic evidence of infection at 6 months after the second stage or at latest follow-up. Infection was again defined according to the MSIS criteria. Results: At 3-year follow-up, estimated reinfection rate in the silver group was slightly lower than in uncoated EPR (10.3% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.104). Among reinfected patients, only one out of three patients (33%) in the silver group required an amputation compared to 80% in the nonsilver group (p = 0.047). Conclusions: Our results show the efficacy of PorAg® coating in the two-stage revision of knee EPR. PorAg®-coated EPR may have possible advantages over this traditional strategy, in particular when applied to patients with a higher risk of reinfection.
2020
Sambri A.; Zucchini R.; Giannini C.; Zamparini E.; Viale P.; Donati D.M.; De Paolis M.
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/769454
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 13
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 15
social impact