BACKGROUND: It is widely believed that a deep implant infection leads to poor functional and emotional outcomes following total hip arthroplasty. QUESTIONS/ PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective comparative review was to determine if patients who undergo two-stage, septic revision hip arthroplasty will have decreased emotional and general health scores, in addition to decreased function, compared to the aseptic revision group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred forty-five of 195 patients who underwent aseptic total hip revision for aseptic loosening (mean follow-up = 61 months) and 45 of 73 patients who underwent two-stage, septic revision hip arthroplasty (mean follow-up = 48 months) met the inclusion criteria and had a technically successful outcome. All patients were retrospectively evaluated using Harris Hip Scores (HHS), ad hoc questions, and the SF-36 Health Survey. RESULTS: The average HHS were 73.2 ± 20.5 (aseptic) and 57.4 ± 20.6 (septic). Significant differences in the SF-36 Health Survey were found between the two groups in: physical functioning (p = 0.026) and role limitations due to physical health (p = 0.004). No significant difference in SF-36 scores was seen in: Energy/Fatigue, General Health Perception, Personal or Emotional Problems, Role Limitations due to Emotional Well Being, Social Functioning, and Bodily Pain. CONCLUSIONS: Two-stage, septic revision produces a poor functional outcome compared to aseptic revision; however, the overall impact of a septic revision emotionally and socially was not significantly different than patients undergoing aseptic revision.
BACKGROUND: It is widely believed that a deep implant infection leads to poor functional and emotional outcomes following total hip arthroplasty. QUESTIONS/ PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective comparative review was to determine if patients who undergo two-stage, septic revision hip arthroplasty will have decreased emotional and general health scores, in addition to decreased function, compared to the aseptic revision group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred forty-five of 195 patients who underwent aseptic total hip revision for aseptic loosening (mean follow-up = 61 months) and 45 of 73 patients who underwent two-stage, septic revision hip arthroplasty (mean follow-up = 48 months) met the inclusion criteria and had a technically successful outcome. All patients were retrospectively evaluated using Harris Hip Scores (HHS), ad hoc questions, and the SF-36 Health Survey. RESULTS: The average HHS were 73.2 ± 20.5 (aseptic) and 57.4 ± 20.6 (septic). Significant differences in the SF-36 Health Survey were found between the two groups in: physical functioning (p = 0.026) and role limitations due to physical health (p = 0.004). No significant difference in SF-36 scores was seen in: Energy/Fatigue, General Health Perception, Personal or Emotional Problems, Role Limitations due to Emotional Well Being, Social Functioning, and Bodily Pain. CONCLUSIONS: Two-stage, septic revision produces a poor functional outcome compared to aseptic revision; however, the overall impact of a septic revision emotionally and socially was not significantly different than patients undergoing aseptic revision.
Entities:
Keywords:
aseptic; hip arthroplasty; outcomes; revision; septic
Authors: Paul H Yi; Michael B Cross; Mario Moric; Scott M Sporer; Richard A Berger; Craig J Della Valle Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Paul H Yi; Rachel M Frank; Elliott Vann; Kevin A Sonn; Mario Moric; Craig J Della Valle Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Maik Hoberg; Christian Konrads; Jana Engelien; Dorothee Oschmann; Michael Holder; Matthias Walcher; André Steinert; Maximilian Rudert Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Philipp Born; Thomas Ilchmann; Werner Zimmerli; Lukas Zwicky; Peter Graber; Peter E Ochsner; Martin Clauss Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 3.717