Complications of antibiotic cement spacers used for elbow infections.

Background: Antibiotic cement spacers have been widely used in the treatment of joint infections. There are no commercially available antibiotic spacers for the elbow. Instead, they are typically fashioned by the surgeon at the time of surgery using cement alone or a combination of cement with sutures, Steinmann pins, external fixator components, or elbow arthroplasty components. There is no consensus regarding the ideal elbow antibiotic spacer and no previous studies have examined the complications associated with these handmade implants in relation to their unique structural design.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 55 patients who had 78 static antibiotic cement spacers implanted between January 1998 and February 2021 as part of a 2-stage treatment plan for infection of an elbow arthroplasty, other elbow surgery, or primary elbow infection. Several antibiotic spacer structures were used during the study period. For analysis purposes, the spacers were classified into linked and unlinked spacers based on whether there was a linking mechanism between the humerus and the ulna. Complications related to these spacers that occurred either during the implantation, between implantation and removal, or during removal were recorded and analyzed from chart review and follow-up x rays. Reoperations due to spacer-related complications were also recorded.

Results: Among the 55 patients (78 spacers), there were 23 complications, including 17 minor and 6 major complications. The most common complication of unlinked spacers (intramedullary [IM] dowels, beads and cap spacer) was spacer displacement. Other complications included IM dowel fracture and difficulty locating beads during spacer removal. The major complications of linked cement spacers included two periprosthetic humerus fractures after internal external fixator cement spacers and re-operation due to breakage and displacement of one bushing cement spacer. The major complications of unlinked cement spacers included two reoperations due to IM dowel displacement and one reoperation due to displacement of beads. Among patients who had removal of all components and those with native joints, there was no statistically significant difference between internal external fixator cement spacers and unlinked cement spacers in minor complication rates (30% vs. 16%, P = .16), major complication rates (7% vs. 8%, P = .85) and reoperation rates (0% vs. 8%, P = .12).

Conclusions: Static handmade antibiotic elbow spacers have unique complications related to their structural designs. The most common complication of linked and nonlinked cement spacers were failure of the linking mechanism and displacement, respectively. Surgeons should keep in mind the possible complications of different structures of cement spacers when choosing 1 antibiotic spacer structure over another.