Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Mar;472(3):1036-42.
doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-3294-y. Epub 2013 Sep 21.

Single- or two-stage revision for infected total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review of the literature

Hugh A C Leonard  1 , Alexander D Liddle, Orlaith Burke, David W Murray, Hemant Pandit
Affiliations

Single- or two-stage revision for infected total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review of the literature

Hugh A C Leonard et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Mar.

Abstract

Background: 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.

Questions/purposes: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
A flow chart of the study protocol is shown.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The forest plot shows a comparison of single- with two-stage revisions in terms of risk of reinfection. The squares represent the overall hazard ratio; the larger squares represent larger studies. The bars on either side represent 95% CI. There is heterogeneity among the studies with no study showing a statistically significant difference between the procedures in terms of reinfection rate.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The forest plot shows a comparison of single- with two-stage revision in terms of functional outcome. The squares represent the overall hazard ratio; the larger squares represent larger studies. The bars either side represent 95% CI. There is heterogeneity among the studies but an overall trend exists toward better outcomes with single-stage revision. One study [22] shows significantly superior function with single-stage revision.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Berend KR, Lombardi AV, Jr, Morris MJ, Bergeson AG, Adams JB, Sneller MA. Two-stage treatment of hip periprosthetic joint infection is associated with a high rate of infection control but high mortality. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:510–518. doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2595-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beswick AD, Elvers KT, Smith AJ, Gooberman-Hill R, Lovering A, Blom AW. What is the evidence base to guide surgical treatment of infected hip prostheses? Systematic review of longitudinal studies in unselected patients. BMC Med. 2012;10:18. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-18. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bozic KJ, Ries MD. The impact of infection after total hip arthroplasty on hospital and surgeon resource utilization. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1746–1751. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02937. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Carlsson AS, Egund N, Gentz CF, Hussenius A, Josefsson G, Lindberg L. Radiographic loosening after revision with gentamicin-containing cement for deep infection in total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;194:271–279. - PubMed
    1. Dale H, Fenstad AM, Hallan G, Havelin LI, Furnes O, Overgaard S, Pederson AB, Karrholm J, Garellick G, Pulkkinen P, Eskelinen A, Makela K, Engesaeter LB. Increasing risk of prosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2012;83:449–458. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2012.733918. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types