Espaciadores de cadera en cirugía de revisión en dos tiempos

Resum

Objective: The main objective is to communicate our ex-perience in two-stage revision surgery in chronic hip infection after THA with different types of spacers and the advantages of the articulating spacer compared to other alternatives. Material and methods: We have analyzed 17 cases in the last 4 years in which we have used static spacers (6), cement blocks (4), and articulating spacers (7). The average follow-up of the cases is 25 months and the minimum follow-up was 12 months. Results: From the 6 cases with standard spacers, 2 of them result on periimplant fractures and another 2 suffered recurrences of the infection. Spacers with manual cement blocks required prolonged hospital stay and greater difficulty in the second surgery time. Those cases treated with articulating spacers (7), did not showed complications regarding to dislocation, periimplant fractures, or reinfection. Conclusion: We defend the use of articulating spacers as they avoid the shortening of the affected lower limb, minimize the contracture of soft tissues and reduce complications with regard to other alter-natives. They allow the autonomous march of the patient between the two times of surgery and make easier the reimplantation in a second time