Infection periprothetique de l’épaule : révision en deux temps versus spacer antibiotique articulé permanent

Abstract

IntroductionPeriprosthetic shoulder infections (PSIs) represent a serious complication following shoulder arthroplasty. No consensus exists regarding the optimal option. We conducted a retrospective case-control study to compare the outcomes of 2-stage revision shoulder arthroplasty and those of definitive articulating antibiotic spacer implantation with regards to eradication of the infection, improvement of pain and shoulder function. Materials and methods30 patients treated for an infected shoulder arthroplasty were retrospectively reviewed after a mean follow-up of 8 years (range, 2–10 years). Nineteen underwent definitive articulating antibiotic spacer implantation and 11 underwent 2-stage revision arthroplasty. Mean age at surgery was 68.8 years. Assessment included Constant-Murley score, visual analog scale pain score, objective examination, patient subjective satisfaction score as well as standard radiographs. ResultsAt the most recent follow-up, none of the patients had clinical or radiographic signs suggesting recurrent infection. Most patients reported satisfying subjective and objective outcomes. Follow-up examination showed significant improvement of all variables compared to preoperative values (p<0.001). Radiographs did not show progressive radiolucent lines or change in the position of the functional spacer. No statistically significant differences were reported between the two groups concerning Constant-Murley and VAS scores, while average forward flexion and abduction were significantly higher in patients undergoing 2-stage revision surgery. ConclusionsBoth surgical procedures provided infection eradication and satisfying subjective functional outcomes. Functional results were superior in patients treated with revision shoulder prosthesis, although a higher rate of complication was reported in this cohort of patients, thus suggesting the use of permanent spacer in high-risk or low-demanding elderly patients. Level of evidenceIII, Retrospective case-control study.