Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 38, Issue 7, pp 1363–1368 | Cite as

Prosthetic joint infection following total hip replacement: results of one-stage versus two-stage exchange

  • Matthias Wolf
  • Heimo Clar
  • Jörg Friesenbichler
  • Gerold Schwantzer
  • Gerwin Bernhardt
  • Gerald Gruber
  • Mathias Glehr
  • Andreas Leithner
  • Patrick Sadoghi
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Total hip arthroplasty Infection Classification system Outcome analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ (2009) The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(1):128–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blom AW, Taylor AH, Pattison G, Whitehouse S, Bannister GC (2003) Infection after total hip arthroplasty. The Avon experience. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 85(7):956–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauer TW, Parvizi J, Kobayashi N, Krebs V (2006) Diagnosis of periprosthetic infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(4):869–882PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 5.
    Evans RP (2011) Current concepts for clean air and total joint arthroplasty: laminar airflow and ultraviolet radiation: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(4):945–953PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Romanò CL, Romanò D, Meani E, Logoluso N, Drago L (2011) Two-stage revision surgery with preformed spacers and cementless implants for septic hip arthritis: a prospective, non-randomized cohort study. BMC Infect Dis 16(11):129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dale H, Hallan G, Hallan G, Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB (2009) Increasing risk of revision due to deep infection after hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 80(6):639–645PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bejon P, Berendt A, Atkins BL, Green N, Parry H, Masters S, McLardy-Smith P, Gundle R, Byren I (2010) Two-stage revision for prosthetic joint infection: predictors of outcome and the role of reimplantation microbiology. J Antimicrob Chemother 65(3):569–575PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wolf CF, Gu NY, Doctor JN, Manner PA, Leopold SS (2011) Comparison of one and two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasty complicated by infection: a Markov expected-utility decision analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(7):631–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 11.
    Fink B, Grossmann A, Fuerst M, Schäfer P, Frommelt L (2009) Two-stage cementless revision of infected hip endoprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(7):1848–1858PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pignatti G, Nitta S, Rani N, Dallari D, Sabbioni G, Stagni C, Giunti A (2010) Two stage hip revision in periprosthetic infection: results of 41 cases. Open Orthop J 4:193–200PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wroblewski BM (1986) One-stage revision of infected cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res (211):103–107Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leopold SS (2014) Consensus statement from the international consensus meeting on periprosthetic joint infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(12):3731–3732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Man FH, Sendi P, Zimmerli W, Maurer TB, Ochsner PE, Ilchmann T (2011) Infectiological, functional, and radiographic outcome after revision for prosthetic hip infection according to a strict algorithm. Acta Orthop 82(1):27–34PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 17.
    Goslings JC, Gouma DJ (2008) What is a surgical complication? World J Surg 32(6):952PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Winkler H, Stoiber A, Kaudela K, Winter F, Menschik F (2008) One stage uncemented revision of infected total hip replacement using cancellous allograft bone impregnated with antibiotics. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 90(12):1580–1584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 20.
    Bedair H, Ting N, Bozic KJ, Della Valle CJ, Sporer SM (2011) Treatment of early postoperative infection after THA: a decision analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(12):3477–3485PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wolf M, Leithner A, Clar H (2012) Letter to the editor: treatment of early postoperative infections after THA: a decision analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(6):1792, author reply 1793–4PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang J, Dang P, Raut CP, Pandalai PK, Maduekwe UN, Rattner DW, Lauwers GY, Yoon SS (2012) Comparison of a lymph node ratio-based staging system with the 7th AJCC system for gastric cancer: analysis of 18,043 patients from the SEER database. Ann Surg 255(3):478–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Wolf
    • 1
  • Heimo Clar
    • 1
  • Jörg Friesenbichler
    • 1
  • Gerold Schwantzer
    • 2
  • Gerwin Bernhardt
    • 1
  • Gerald Gruber
    • 1
  • Mathias Glehr
    • 1
  • Andreas Leithner
    • 1
  • Patrick Sadoghi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMedical University of GrazGrazAustria
  2. 2.Statistik und DokumentationInstitut für Medizinische InformatikGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations