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: 2.88). 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 Followers
 · 
82 Views
  • [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.
    The Bone & Joint Journal 10/2014; 96-B(10):1312-8. DOI:10.1302/0301-620X.96B10.32875 · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication of arthroplasty that is associated with significant mortality, morbidity and costs. PJI is difficult to cure because causative bacteria form and persist in biofilm adherent to the prosthesis surface. PJI can be classified in to early, delayed or late according to the time of onset after insertion of the prosthesis and this classification can help determine pathogenesis and appropriate management. Traditional treatment has been with prolonged intravenous antibiotics and prosthesis exchange, which has been successful in treating infection but is technically difficult and has high rates of associated morbidity. On the basis of in vitro and animal studies, interest has turned to the use of antimicrobials that are particularly active against biofilm-associated bacteria. Recent clinical evidence shows success in more than 77% of early PJI with surgical debridement, retention of prosthesis and the use of rifampicin-based combinations for staphylococcal PJI. Fluoroquinolones are preferred for Gram-negative PJI. Optimal antimicrobial treatment duration and the management of polymicrobial, enterococcal, fungal and culture-negative infections is still yet to be defined but will become more clear as the results of current research comes to hand.
    Internal Medicine Journal 06/2014; 44(9). DOI:10.1111/imj.12510 · 1.70 Impact Factor
  • [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