Article

Single- or Two-stage Revision for Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review of the Literature

Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Botnar Research Centre, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (Impact Factor: 2.79). 09/2013; 472(3). DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3294-y
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The best approach for surgical treatment of an infected THA remains controversial. Two-stage revision is believed to result in lower reinfection rates but may result in significant functional impairment. Some authors now suggest that single-stage revision may provide comparable results in terms of infection eradication while providing superior functional outcomes.
We performed a systematic review to determine whether single- or two-stage revision for an infected THA provides lower reinfection rates and higher functional outcome scores.
We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed and Embase, using the search string [Infection AND ("total hip replacement" OR "total hip arthroplasty") AND revision]. All studies comparing reinfection rates or functional scores for single- and two-stage revision were retrieved and reviewed. A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA checklist.
The initial search retrieved 1128 studies. Following strict exclusion criteria, we identified nine comparative studies comparing reinfection rates (all nine studies) or functional scores (four studies) between single- and two-stage revisions. The overall quality of studies was poor with no randomized studies being identified. Groups often varied in their baseline characteristics. There was no consensus among the studies regarding the relative incidence of reinfection between the two procedures. There was a trend toward better functional outcomes in single-stage surgery, but this reached significance in only one study.
In appropriate patients, single-stage revision appears to be associated with similar reinfection rates when compared with two-stage revision with superior functional outcomes. This concurs with earlier studies, but given the methodologic quality of the included studies, these findings should be treated with caution. High-quality randomized studies are needed to compare the two approaches to confirm these findings, and, if appropriate, to determine which patients are appropriate for single-stage revision.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
69 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We describe two cases of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip due to Salmonella. The first patient presented with an early infection 5 d after being discharged following a total hip replacement and the second patient presented at the emergency ward with a late infection, thirteen years following a total hip replacement. Both cases occurred within one month of each other at our institution and both were successfully treated with a one-stage revision. PJI caused by Salmonella species is very rare: so far only 20 Salmonella PJIs of the hip have been described. Therefore, full consensus on the best treatment approach has not yet been reached. An aggressive two-stage approach is advised because of the virulence of Salmonella, although a limited number of successful one-stage approaches have been described as well. According to the latest guidelines, one-stage revision has comparable success rates and less morbidity compared to two-stage treatment, when selecting the right patients. In our opinion, PJI caused by Salmonella should be treated just as PJI caused by other bacteria, with consideration of the selection criteria as mentioned in several treatment guidelines. As illustrated by these two cases, one-stage revision can be successful in both early and late Salmonella PJI of the hip.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We report the five year outcomes of a two-stage approach for infected total hip replacement. This is a single-surgeon experience at a tertiary centre where the more straightforward cases are treated using single-stage exchange. This study highlights the vital role of the multidisciplinary team in managing these cases. A total of 125 patients (51 male, 74 female) with a mean age of 68 years (42 to 78) were reviewed prospectively. Functional status was assessed using the Harris hip score (HHS). The mean HHS improved from 38 (6 to 78.5) pre-operatively to 81.2 (33 to 98) post-operatively. Staphylococcus species were isolated in 85 patients (68%). The rate of control of infection was 96% at five years. In all, 19 patients died during the period of the study. This represented a one year mortality of 0.8% and an overall mortality of 15.2% at five years. No patients were lost to follow-up. We report excellent control of infection in a series of complex patients and infections using a two-stage revision protocol supported by a multidisciplinary approach. The reason for the high rate of mortality in these patients is not known. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1312-18.
    10/2014; 96-B(10):1312-8. DOI:10.1302/0301-620X.96B10.32875
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Megaprostheses are frequently used after segmental resection of bone sarcomas, bone metastases, and in large osseous defects in revision arthroplasty.
    Der Unfallchirurg 07/2014; 117(7):607-13. DOI:10.1007/s00113-013-2477-z · 0.61 Impact Factor