Functional and Emotional Results Differ After Aseptic vs Septic Revision Hip Arthroplasty
It is widely believed that a deep implant infection leads to poor functional and emotional outcomes following total hip arthroplasty.
The purpose of this retrospective comparative review was to determine if patients who undergo two-stage, septic revision hip arthroplasty will have decreased emotional and general health scores, in addition to decreased function, compared to the aseptic revision group.
Patients and Methods
One hundred forty-five of 195 patients who underwent aseptic total hip revision for aseptic loosening (mean follow-up = 61 months) and 45 of 73 patients who underwent two-stage, septic revision hip arthroplasty (mean follow-up = 48 months) met the inclusion criteria and had a technically successful outcome. All patients were retrospectively evaluated using Harris Hip Scores (HHS), ad hoc questions, and the SF-36 Health Survey.
The average HHS were 73.2 ± 20.5 (aseptic) and 57.4 ± 20.6 (septic). Significant differences in the SF-36 Health Survey were found between the two groups in: physical functioning (p = 0.026) and role limitations due to physical health (p = 0.004). No significant difference in SF-36 scores was seen in: Energy/Fatigue, General Health Perception, Personal or Emotional Problems, Role Limitations due to Emotional Well Being, Social Functioning, and Bodily Pain.
Two-stage, septic revision produces a poor functional outcome compared to aseptic revision; however, the overall impact of a septic revision emotionally and socially was not significantly different than patients undergoing aseptic revision.
Keywordsseptic aseptic revision outcomes hip arthroplasty
- 15.Schlegel UJ, Bitsch RG, Pritsch M, Aldinger PR, Mau H, Breusch SJ. Acetabular reinforcement rings in revision total hip arthroplasty: midterm results in 298 cases. Orthopade. 2008;37:904, 906–913.Google Scholar
- 19.Tarasevicius S, Zegunis V, Tarasevicius R, Kalesinskas RJ, Janusonis V. Hip revision arthroplasty (long-term results). Medicina (Kaunas). 2004;40:332–337.Google Scholar