The management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip is a challenging procedure. One-stage exchange is carried out in specialist centres with comparable infection free survival rates. However, there is a paucity of long-term results of this approach in young patients.
Methods:
All patients undergoing one-stage exchange due to PJI with a known causative organism ⩽45 years of age with a minimum of 10-year follow-up (mean 15 years; range 10–24 years) were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients older than 45 years of age or patients with a two-stage procedure were excluded from the study. The primary outcome measure was failure rate with special focus on reinfection at latest follow-up. Failure was defined as revision surgery for infection. Furthermore, functional outcome using the Harris Hip Score was determined initially and at latest follow-up. 26 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were available for final follow-up.
Results:
The study cohort consists of 16 male and 10 female patients with a mean age of 36.8 years (range 20–45 years) and a mean BMI of 29.8 kg/m2 (range 20.7–40.6 kg/m2). Prior to the single-stage procedure, the patients underwent an average of 3.1 previous surgical interventions (range 1–9). The mean hospital stay after septic revision was 19.7 days (11–33 days). Most infections were caused by Staphylococcus epidermidis (n = 8, 30.8%), followed by Staph. aureus (n = 7, 26.9%) and Propionibacterium acnes (n = 6, 23.1%). At latest follow-up, the overall survival rate was 76.9 %, while infection control could be achieved in 96.2%. At final examination, the mean Harris Hip Score improved from 46.2 to 78.9 (range 18.0–99; SD, 22.6).
Conclusions:
Single-stage revision surgery for the management of PJI in patients ⩽45 years is a successful treatment option with high infection control, even after long-term follow-up.
ShaoYZhangCCharronKD, et al. The fate of the remaining knee(s) or hip(s) in osteoarthritic patients undergoing a primary TKA or THA. J Arthroplasty2013; 28: 1842–1845.
2.
TriantafyllopoulosGKSoranoglouVGMemtsoudisSG, et al. Rate and risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection among 36,494 primary total hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 1166–1170.
3.
WilsonJCharlettALeongG, et al. Rates of surgical site infection after hip replacement as a hospital performance indicator: analysis of data from the English mandatory surveillance system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2008; 29: 219–226.
4.
ZimmerliWTrampuzAOchsnerPE.Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med2004; 351: 1645–1654.
5.
RomanòCLRomanòDLogolusoN, et al. Septic versus aseptic hip revision: how different?J Orthop Traumatol2010; 11: 167–174.
6.
BarrackRLEnghGRorabeckC, et al. Patient satisfaction and outcome after septic versus aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2000; 15: 990–993.
7.
BozicKJKurtzSMLauE, et al. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am2009; 91: 128–133.
8.
ZmistowskiBKaramJADurinkaJB, et al. Periprosthetic joint infection increases the risk of one-year mortality. J Bone Joint Surg Am2013; 95: 2177–2184.
9.
HaleemAABerryDJHanssenAD.Mid-term to long-term followup of two-stage reimplantation for infected total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2004; (428): 35–39.
10.
JämsenEStogiannidisIMalmivaaraA, et al. Outcome of prosthesis exchange for infected knee arthroplasty: the effect of treatment approach. Acta Orthop2009; 80: 67–77.
11.
LeoneJMHanssenAD.Management of infection at the site of a total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2005; 87: 2335–2348.
12.
MortazaviSMVegariDHoA, et al. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty for infected total knee arthroplasty: predictors of failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res2011; 469: 3049–3054.
13.
PittoRPCastelliCCFerrariR, et al. Pre-formed articulating knee spacer in two-stage revision for the infected total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop2005; 29: 305–308.
14.
RomanòCLGalaLLogolusoN, et al. Two-stage revision of septic knee prosthesis with articulating knee spacers yields better infection eradication rate than one-stage or two-stage revision with static spacers. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc2012; 20: 2445–2453.
15.
SilvestreAAlmeidaFRenovellP, et al. Revision of infected total knee arthroplasty: two-stage reimplantation using an antibiotic-impregnated static spacer. Clin Orthop Surg2013; 5: 180–187.
16.
ZellerVLhotellierLMarmorS, et al. One-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic hip infection: results of a large prospective cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg Am2014; 96: e1.
17.
LotyBPostelMEvrardJ, et al. One stage revision of infected total hip replacements with replacement of bone loss by allografts. Study of 90 cases of which 46 used bone allografts. Int Orthop1992; 16: 330–338.
18.
WinklerHStoiberAKaudelaK, et al. One stage uncemented revision of infected total hip replacement using cancellous allograft bone impregnated with antibiotics. J Bone Joint Surg Br2008; 90: 1580–1584.
19.
WroblewskiBM.One-stage revision of infected cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res1986; (211): 103–107.
20.
GehrkeTKendoffD.Peri-prosthetic hip infections: in favour of one-stage. Hip Int2012; 22(Suppl. 8): S40–S45.
21.
ZaharAGehrkeTA.One-stage revision for infected total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am2016; 47: 11–18.
22.
BerendKRLombardiAVJrMorrisMJ, et al. Two-stage treatment of hip periprosthetic joint infection is associated with a high rate of infection control but high mortality. Clin Orthop Relat Res2013; 471: 510–518.
23.
ZaharAWebbJGehrkeT, et al. One-stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection of the hip. Hip Int2015; 25: 301–307.
24.
ZaharAKendoffDOKlatteTO, et al. Can good infection control be obtained in one-stage exchange of the infected TKA to a rotating hinge design? 10-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res2016; 474: 81–87.
25.
BaumanRDLewallenDGHanssenAD.Limitations of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2009; 467: 818–824.
26.
HilgenVCitakMVettorazziE, et al. 10-year results following impaction bone grafting of major bone defects in 29 rotational and hinged knee revision arthroplasties: a follow-up of a previous report. Acta Orthop2013; 84: 387–391.
27.
GeorgeDAKonanSHaddadFS.Single-stage hip and knee exchange for periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty2015; 30: 2264–2270.
28.
ChoiHRKwonYMFreibergAA, et al. Comparison of one-stage revision with antibiotic cement versus two-stage revision results for infected total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2013; 28(Suppl.): 66–70.
29.
HansenETetreaultMZmistowskiB, et al. Outcome of one-stage cementless exchange for acute postoperative periprosthetic hip infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res2013; 471: 3214–3222.
30.
KloucheSLeonardPZellerV, et al. Infected total hip arthroplasty revision: one- or two-stage procedure?Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2012; 98: 144–150.
31.
RautVVSineyPDWroblewskiBM.One-stage revision of total hip arthroplasty for deep infection. Long-term followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res1995; (321): 202–207.
32.
BuchholzHWElsonRAEngelbrechtE, et al. Management of deep infection of total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br1981; 63: 342–353.
33.
JhanSWLuYDLeeMS, et al. The risk factors of failed reimplantation arthroplasty for periprosthetic hip infection. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2017; 18: 255.
34.
VielgutISadoghiPWolfM, et al. Two-stage revision of prosthetic hip joint infections using antibiotic-loaded cement spacers: when is the best time to perform the second stage?Int Orthop2015; 39: 1731–1736.
35.
MohamadJHalawiDavid Brigati, et al. Total hip arthroplasty in patients 55 years or younger: risk factors for poor midterm outcomes. J Clin Orthop Trauma2018; 9: 103–106.
36.
TriantafyllopoulosGKPoultsidesLASakellariouV, et al. Irrigation and debridement for periprosthetic infections of the hip and factors determining outcome. Int Orthop2015; 39: 1203–1209.
37.
TanTLMaltenfortMGChenAF, et al. Development and evaluation of a preoperative risk calculator for periprosthetic joint infection following total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2018; 100: 777–785.
38.
KurtzSMLauECSonMS, et al. Are we winning or losing the battle with periprosthetic joint infection: trends in periprosthetic joint infection and mortality risk for the Medicare population. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 3238–3245.
39.
MakarewichCAAndersonMBGilillandJM, et al. Ten-year survivorship of primary total hip arthroplasty in patients 30 years of age or younger. Bone Joint J2018; 100-B: 867–874.
40.
PrinsWMeijerRKollenBJ, et al. Excellent results with the cemented Lubinus SP II 130-mm femoral stem at 10 years of follow-up: 932 hips followed for 5–15 years. Acta Orthop2014; 85: 276–279.
41.
StigbrandHUllmarkG.A 3- to 18-year follow-up of revision total hip arthroplasty with impacted bone allografts and cemented Lubinus SP II stem. Clinical, radiographic, and survivorship analysis with comparison to the literature. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 2810–2814.
42.
BellomoFBertignoneLMorinoL, et al. MP-Link cementless distal fixation modular prosthesis for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Traumatol2002; 2: 121–124.
43.
UngerASLewisRJGruenT.Evaluation of a porous tantalum uncemented acetabular cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: clinical and radiological results of 60 hips. J Arthroplasty2005; 20: 1002–1009.
