Single-stage versus two-stage revision of total hip replacement for contained periprosthetic infection | ||||
| The Egyptian Orthopaedic Journal | ||||
| Volume 51, Issue 2, April 2016, Page 101-110 PDF (1.22 MB) | ||||
| DOI: 10.4103/1110-1148.203142 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Author | ||||
| Ayman M. Ebied | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Objective In this article, single-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic hip infection was compared with the two-stage revision protocol in patients without draining sinuses. Background Staged revision for periprosthetic infection of the hip is an accepted and widely used technique by many surgeons. However, single-stage exchange of the hip prosthesis remains an attractive option to some. Patients and methods Fifty-two patients with evidence of periprosthetic infection underwent preoperative aspiration of the affected hip. The organism was identified in 33/52 patients, and single-stage revision was performed. The remaining 19 patients underwent two-stage exchange arthroplasty. All patients had cemented cup and long cementless stem. Results At an average 4 years (range: 2–7 years) postoperatively, only one case of persistent infection was found in the single-stage group, which showed a success rate of 97%, in comparison with 95% success rate in the staged protocol. Conclusion Single-stage exchange achieves excellent success rates in patients with contained infection when the organism is identified preoperatively. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Infection; single-stage revision; Total Hip Replacement; two-stage revision | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 28 PDF Download: 14 |
||||
