Prosthetic joint infection following total hip replacement: results of one-stage versus two-stage exchange
- 841 Downloads
Prosthetic hip joint infection remains a challenging socio-economic problem. Curative treatment is usually a one- or two-stage revision surgery, but neither of these options has yet emerged as the treatment of choice. The aim of this study was to evaluate which of these methods produced superior outcomes.
A retrospective study was performed including 92 patients with deep infections after implantation of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) who had undergone either one-stage or two-stage revision surgery at a single centre. Infections were classified according to McPherson and we evaluated the rate of persisting infection or reinfection after surgical intervention.
The two-stage revision surgery revealed superior outcomes for the analysed infection categories compared to the one-stage procedure except for the least serious category of infections (i.e. McPherson Stage I/A/1, early postoperative infection, no systemic comorbidities, local status uncompromised).
Eradication of prosthetic infection was achieved in 94.5 % (n = 52) within the group of two-stage exchange, and 56.8 % (n = 21) of patients treated with a one-stage procedure. Outcome of patients following a one-stage or a two-stage exchange was overall significantly different with p < 0.001. Further deviations between the described two procedures were noted in the subgroups following the classification described by McPherson.
Our results indicate superiority of two-stage revision surgery in case of serious infections. The authors believe that decisions on the surgical approach for the treatment of deep prosthesis infections should be made on the basis of standardized staging systems.
KeywordsTotal hip arthroplasty Infection Classification system Outcome analysis
- 4.Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF, Bauer TW, Springer BD, Della Valle CJ, Garvin KL, Mont MA, Wongworawat MD, Zalavras CG (2011) New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(11):2992–2994PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.McPherson EJ, Woodson C, Holtom P, Roidis N, Shufelt C, Patzakis M, Keck (2002) Periprosthetic total hip infection: outcomes using a staging system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 403:8–15Google Scholar
- 13.Wroblewski BM (1986) One-stage revision of infected cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res (211):103–107Google Scholar
- 16.McPherson EJ, Tontz W Jr, Patzakis M, Woodsome C, Holtom P, Norris L, Shufelt C (1999) Outcome of infected total knee utilizing a staging system for prosthetic joint infection. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 28(3):161–165Google Scholar
- 19.Raut VV, Siney PD, Wroblewski BM (1994) One-stage revision of infected total hip replacements with discharging sinuses. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 76(5):721–724Google Scholar
- 23.Sadoghi P, Schröder C, Fottner A, Steinbrück A, Betz O, Müller PE, Jansson V, Hölzer A (2012) Application and survival curve of total hip arthroplasties: a systematic comparative analysis using worldwide hip arthroplasty registers. Int Orthop 36(11):2197–2203PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar