Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Similar outcomes between two-stage revisions for infection and aseptic hip revisions

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Two-stage revision hip arthroplasty using an antibiotic-loaded spacer is the most widely performed procedure for infected hip arthroplasties. The clinical outcome of this type of surgery compared with aseptic joint revision with exchange of femoral and acetabular components is still controversial due to the relative lack of medium- to long-term follow-up. Therefore, we analysed clinical and radiological outcomes of septic two-stage revisions compared with aseptic hip revision surgeries.

Methods

In this retrospective study we assessed 82 consecutive patients who underwent two-stage revision for septic total hip (45 patients) or one-stage aseptic revision arthroplasty (37 patients). The average follow-up was 53 months for the aseptic group and 55 months for the septic group. For clinical evaluation, we used the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and the Merle d’Aubigné and Postel score. The postoperative pain level was determined with the visual analogue pain scale.

Results

The surgeries were performed 124 months (aseptic group) and 119 months (septic group) after primary total hip arthroplasty on average. The main indications for aseptic revision surgeries were aseptic loosening (96 %), dislocation (2.2 %), and periprosthetic fracture (2.2 %). In the clinical outcome patients achieved 75.5 points in the aseptic group and 73.4 points in the septic group in the Harris Hip Score. The Merle d’Aubigné and Postel Score revealed 12.5 points for the aseptic group and 13.1 points for the septic group. Mean level of persisting pain was 0.8 (aseptic group) and 0.4 (septic group) on the visual analogue scale (VAS). Overall survival in the aseptic group was 85.6 % at 9.8 years 82.7 % at 10.1 years for the septic group, with a repeat revision rate of 8.1 % and 6.7 %, respectively.

Conclusions

Performing aseptic acetabular and femoral revision hip arthroplasty showed equal clinical outcomes in relation to septic two-stage revision hip surgeries. Our results showed a tendency for better outcome in comparison with the information given in the literature for septic and nonseptic exchange arthroplasties, including a lower rate of re-revisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pivec R, Johnson AJ, Mears SC, Mont MA (2012) Hip arthroplasty. Lancet 380:1768–1777. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60607-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Crowe JF, Sculco TP, Kahn B (2003) Revision total hip arthroplasty: hospital cost and reimbursement analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 413:175–182. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000072469.32680.b6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 91:128–133. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fink B, Grossmann A, Fuerst M, Schafer P, Frommelt L (2009) Two-stage cementless revision of infected hip endoprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:1848–1858. doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0611-y

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 93:631–639. doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.01256

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Garvin KL, Evans BG, Salvati EA, Brause BD (1994) Palacos gentamicin for the treatment of deep periprosthetic hip infections. Clin Orthop Relat Res 298:97–105

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Evans RP (2004) Successful treatment of total hip and knee infection with articulating antibiotic components: a modified treatment method. Clin Orthop Relat Res 427:37–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fehring TK, Calton TF, Griffin WL (1999) Cementless fixation in 2-stage reimplantation for periprosthetic sepsis. J Arthroplast 14:175–181

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Romano CL, Romano D, Logoluso N, Meani E (2010) Septic versus aseptic hip revision: how different? J Orthop Traumatol : Off J Italian Soc Orthop Traumatol 11:167–174. doi:10.1007/s10195-010-0106-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Haddad FS, Muirhead-Allwood SK, Manktelow AR, Bacarese-Hamilton I (2000) Two-stage uncemented revision hip arthroplasty for infection. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82:689–694

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Masri BA, Panagiotopoulos KP, Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP (2007) Cementless two-stage exchange arthroplasty for infection after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 22:72–78. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2006.02.156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Barrack RL, Engh G, Rorabeck C, Sawhney J, Woolfrey M (2000) Patient satisfaction and outcome after septic versus aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 15:990–993. doi:10.1054/arth.2000.16504

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Boettner F, Cross MB, Nam D, Kluthe T, Schulte M, Goetze C (2011) Functional and emotional results differ after aseptic vs septic revision Hip arthroplasty. HSS J : Musculoskelet J Hosp Spec Surg 7:235–238. doi:10.1007/s11420-011-9211-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kavanagh BF, Fitzgerald RH Jr (1985) Clinical and roentgenographic assessment of total hip arthroplasty. A new hip score. Clin Orthop Relat Res 193:133–140

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pak JH, Paprosky WG, Jablonsky WS, Lawrence JM (1993) Femoral strut allografts in cementless revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 295:172–178

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM (1994) Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplast 9:33–44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 121:20–32

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 55:1629–1632

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB, Langeland N, Vollset SE (1998) Patient satisfaction and function after primary and revision total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 351:135–148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Patil S, Garbuz DS, Greidanus NV, Masri BA, Duncan CP (2008) Quality of life outcomes in revision vs primary total hip arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. J Arthroplast 23:550–553. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2007.04.035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Koo KH, Yang JW, Cho SH, Song HR, Park HB, Ha YC, Chang JD, Kim SY, Kim YH (2001) Impregnation of vancomycin, gentamicin, and cefotaxime in a cement spacer for two-stage cementless reconstruction in infected total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 16:882–892. doi:10.1054/arth.2001.24444

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Wilson MG, Dorr LD (1989) Reimplantation of infected total hip arthroplasties in the absence of antibiotic cement. J Arthroplast 4:263–269

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wirtz DC, Gravius S, Ascherl R, Forst R, Noeth U, Maus UM, Zeiler G, Moritz CD (2014) Uncemented femoral revision arthroplasty using a modular tapered, fluted titanium stem. Acta Orthop 85:562–569. doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.958809

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schuh A, Werber S, Holzwarth U, Zeiler G (2004) Cementless modular hip revision arthroplasty using the MRP titan revision stem: outcome of 79 hips after an average of 4 years’ follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 124:306–309. doi:10.1007/s00402-004-0656-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wimmer MD, Randau TM, Deml MC, Ascherl R, Noth U, Forst R, Gravius N, Wirtz D, Gravius S (2013) Impaction grafting in the femur in cementless modular revision total hip arthroplasty: a descriptive outcome analysis of 243 cases with the MRP-TITAN revision implant. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14:19. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-19

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Albert TJ, Balderston RA, Eng K (1997) Relationship of total hip arthroplasty outcomes to other orthopaedic procedures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 344:88–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schlegel UJ, Bitsch RG, Pritsch M, Clauss M, Mau H, Breusch SJ (2006) Mueller reinforcement rings in acetabular revision: outcome in 164 hips followed for 2-17 years. Acta Orthop 77:234–241. doi:10.1080/17453670610045966

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Korovessis P, Repantis T (2009) High medium-term survival of Zweymuller SLR-plus stem used in femoral revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:2032–2040. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-0760-7

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ochs BG, Volkmann R, Eingartner C, Ludolph I, Weller S, Weise K, Ochs U (2007) Treatment of large femoral bone defects–15-year experiences with the cementless bicontact revision stem with distal interlocking. Z Orthop Unfall 145(Suppl 1):S34–S39. doi:10.1055/s-2007-965658

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bohm P, Bischel O (2001) Femoral revision with the Wagner SL revision stem : evaluation of one hundred and twenty-nine revisions followed for a mean of 4.8 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A:1023–1031

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mumme T, Muller-Rath R, Andereya S, Wirtz DC (2007) Uncemented femoral revision arthroplasty using the modular revision prosthesis MRP-TITAN revision stem. Oper Orthop Traumatol 19:56–77. doi:10.1007/s00064-007-1195-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wagner H, Wagner M (1993) Femur revision prosthesis. Z Orthop Grenzgeb 131:574–577. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1040074

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Wirtz DC, Heller KD, Holzwarth U, Siebert C, Pitto RP, Zeiler G, Blencke BA, Forst R (2000) A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision in THR. Int Orthop 24:134–138

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gutierrez Del Alamo J, Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Castellanos V, Gil-Garay E (2007) Radiographic bone regeneration and clinical outcome with the Wagner SL revision stem: a 5-year to 12-year follow-up study. J Arthroplast 22:515–524. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2006.04.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kilgus DJ, Howe DJ, Strang A (2002) Results of periprosthetic hip and knee infections caused by resistant bacteria. Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:116–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Salgado CD, Dash S, Cantey JR, Marculescu CE (2007) Higher risk of failure of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic joint infections. Clin Orthop Relat Res 461:48–53. doi:10.1097/BLO.0b013e3181123d4e

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic Department Koenig-Ludwig-Haus, Center for Musculoskeletal Research, Julius-Maximilians-University Wuerzburg, Brettreichstr. 11, 97074, Wuerzburg, Germany

    Maik Hoberg, Christian Konrads, Jana Engelien, Dorothee Oschmann, Michael Holder, Matthias Walcher, André Steinert & Maximilian Rudert

Authors
  1. Maik Hoberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Konrads
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jana Engelien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dorothee Oschmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Holder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthias Walcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. André Steinert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Maximilian Rudert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maik Hoberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hoberg, M., Konrads, C., Engelien, J. et al. Similar outcomes between two-stage revisions for infection and aseptic hip revisions. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 40, 459–464 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2850-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2850-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation