Septic versus aseptic hip revision: how different?
- PMID: 20811922
- PMCID: PMC2948127
- DOI: 10.1007/s10195-010-0106-y
Septic versus aseptic hip revision: how different?
Abstract
Background: The few available studies directly comparing aseptic and septic joint revision surgery report conflicting results. We investigated whether two-stage revision of septic hip prosthesis with a preformed antibiotic-loaded spacer and an uncemented prosthesis provides hip function and quality of life similar to those provided by aseptic revision surgery in the medium term, as well as the associated direct hospital costs.
Materials and methods: We prospectively evaluated the hip function (Harris hip score) and quality of life (WOMAC and SF-12 scores) of 80 patients who underwent one-stage revision for aseptic loosening (Group A, 40 patients) or two-stage revision for septic total hip prostheses (Group S, 40 patients). Patients were matched for gender, age, and bone loss. A preformed antibiotic-loaded cement spacer was used for two-stage revision, and uncemented modular prostheses were implanted at revision in both groups. The minimum follow-up was 2 years (average 4 years; range 2-6 years).
Results: We found no difference in infection recurrence or aseptic loosening rate in the two groups. Average Harris hip score increased similarly in both groups: from 19.1 to 74.0 in Group A versus 15.0-71.2 in Group S. Patient-reported quality-of-life questionnaires (SF-12 and WOMAC) at last follow-up were similar postoperatively, but the complication rate for Group S was twice that of Group A (20.8 versus 10%). Mean overall hospital-related costs of two-stage procedures were 2.2 times greater than those for aseptic revisions.
Conclusions: Two-stage revision for infected hip prostheses, using a preformed antibiotic-loaded cement spacer and uncemented revision prosthesis, offers a success rate comparable to noninfected revisions in the medium term but is associated with a higher complication rate and costs.
Figures


Similar articles
-
Preformed antibiotic-loaded cement spacers for two-stage revision of infected total hip arthroplasty. Long-term results.Hip Int. 2012 Jul-Aug;22 Suppl 8:S46-53. doi: 10.5301/HIP.2012.9570. Hip Int. 2012. PMID: 22956370
-
Similar outcomes between two-stage revisions for infection and aseptic hip revisions.Int Orthop. 2016 Mar;40(3):459-64. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-2850-3. Epub 2015 Jul 2. Int Orthop. 2016. PMID: 26130288
-
Long-stem versus short-stem preformed antibiotic-loaded cement spacers for two-stage revision of infected total hip arthroplasty.Hip Int. 2010 Jan-Mar;20(1):26-33. doi: 10.1177/112070001002000104. Hip Int. 2010. PMID: 20235080
-
Extensively coated non-modular stem used in two-stage revision for infected total hip arthroplasty: mid-term to long-term follow-up.Orthop Surg. 2014 May;6(2):103-9. doi: 10.1111/os.12107. Orthop Surg. 2014. PMID: 24890291 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Rationale for one stage exchange of infected hip replacement using uncemented implants and antibiotic impregnated bone graft.Int J Med Sci. 2009 Sep 4;6(5):247-52. doi: 10.7150/ijms.6.247. Int J Med Sci. 2009. PMID: 19834590 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Mortality, patient-reported outcome measures, and the health economic burden of prosthetic joint infection.EFORT Open Rev. 2023 Sep 1;8(9):690-697. doi: 10.1530/EOR-23-0078. EFORT Open Rev. 2023. PMID: 37655835 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Do Prosthetic Joint Infections Worsen the Functional Ambulatory Outcome of Patients with Joint Replacements? A Retrospective Matched Cohort Study.Antibiotics (Basel). 2020 Dec 5;9(12):872. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics9120872. Antibiotics (Basel). 2020. PMID: 33291401 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical and cost effectiveness of single stage compared with two stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM): pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial.BMJ. 2022 Oct 31;379:e071281. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-071281. BMJ. 2022. PMID: 36316046 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Microbial resistance to nanotechnologies: An important but understudied consideration using antimicrobial nanotechnologies in orthopaedic implants.Bioact Mater. 2022 Mar 3;16:249-270. doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2022.02.014. eCollection 2022 Oct. Bioact Mater. 2022. PMID: 35415290 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Revision arthroplasty with megaprosthesis after Girdlestone procedure for periprosthetic joint infection as an option in massive acetabular and femoral bone defects.Acta Biomed. 2022 Mar 10;92(S3):e2021531. doi: 10.23750/abm.v92iS3.12160. Acta Biomed. 2022. PMID: 35604274 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Apolone G, Mosconi P Quattrociocchi L, Granicolo EA, Groth NJE (2009) SF-12 health status questionnaire (Italian version). http://crc.marionegri.it/qdv/downloads/SF12%20Manuale.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2009
-
- Athanasou NA, Pandey R, de Steiger R, McLardy Smith P. The role of intraoperative frozen sections in revision total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1433–1434. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical