Literature DB >> 27650276

Retention of the well-fixed implant in the single-stage exchange for chronic infected total hip arthroplasty: an average of five years of follow-up.

Baochao Ji1, Boyong Xu1, Wentao Guo1, Aili Rehei1, Wenbo Mu1, Desheng Yang1, Li Cao2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Removal of an infected prosthesis was considered the gold standard for eradication of infection. However, removal of well-fixed components can result in structural bone damage and compromised reconstruction. In these situations we questioned whether the infection after the total hip arthroplasty could be treated effectively and retain the well-fixed implant in a single-stage exchange.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis which included 31 patients with chronic infected THA who underwent major partial single-stage revision, including routinely exchanged femoral head and liner components, aggressive soft tissue debridement, removal of the femoral stem or acetabular cup and retention of the well-fixed component, thorough exposed component brushing, and adequate surgical soaking. Powdered Vancomycin was poured into the surgical area and the infection control rate and clinical outcomes were evaluated. The failure to treat the infection was defined as a recurrence of infection in the same hip. The average follow-up was five years (2-15 years). RESULT: There were four (12.9 %) failures during the study period at an average of 15 months (9-21 months) after partial single-stage revision. Of the 31 patients, 27 (87.1 %) patients had a satisfactory outcome and required no additional surgical or medical treatment for recurrence of infection. Acetabular cups were revised in 22 patients and femoral stems in nine patients. The mean post-operative Harris hip score at the most recent assessment was 74.6 (68-82).
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of chronic infected THA with retention of the well-fixed implant in a single-stage exchange can be fairly effective in the treatment of infection and achieving acceptable functional outcomes, which indicated that this may be an attractive alternative in highly selected patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Periprosthetic joint infection; Single-stage revision; Total hip arthroplasty

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27650276     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-016-3291-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  36 in total

Review 1.  Appreciating the role of carbon nanotube composites in preventing biofouling and promoting biofilms on material surfaces in environmental engineering: a review.

Authors:  Venkata K K Upadhyayula; Venkataramana Gadhamshetty
Journal:  Biotechnol Adv       Date:  2010-07-03       Impact factor: 14.227

Review 2.  Incidence and risk factors for deep surgical site infection after primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Donna M Urquhart; Fahad S Hanna; Sharon L Brennan; Anita E Wluka; Karin Leder; Peter A Cameron; Stephen E Graves; Flavia M Cicuttini
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2009-10-30       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  The Fate of Spacers in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

Authors:  Miguel M Gomez; Timothy L Tan; Jorge Manrique; Gregory K Deirmengian; Javad Parvizi
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Intrawound application of vancomycin for prophylaxis in instrumented thoracolumbar fusions: efficacy, drug levels, and patient outcomes.

Authors:  Fred A Sweet; Michael Roh; Christopher Sliva
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Does the ingrowth surface make a difference? A retrieval study of 423 cementless acetabular components.

Authors:  Eric Swarts; Thomas A Bucher; Michael Phillips; Francis H X Yap
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2014-10-25       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Prosthetic joint infection following hip fracture and degenerative hip disorder: a cohort study of three thousand, eight hundred and seven consecutive hip arthroplasties with a minimum follow-up of five years.

Authors:  Richard Blomfeldt; Piotr Kasina; Carin Ottosson; Anders Enocson; Lasse J Lapidus
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  One-stage cementless revision arthroplasty for infected hip replacements.

Authors:  Jeong Joon Yoo; Young Sam Kwon; Kyung-Hoi Koo; Kang Sup Yoon; Young-Min Kim; Hee Joong Kim
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-08-13       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  One-stage revision of infected hip arthroplasty: outcome of 39 consecutive hips.

Authors:  Thomas Ilchmann; Werner Zimmerli; Peter Emil Ochsner; Bernhard Kessler; Lukas Zwicky; Peter Graber; Martin Clauss
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  The Role of Highly Selective Implant Retention in the Infected Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Moataz El-Husseiny; Fares S Haddad
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Retaining well-fixed cementless stem in the treatment of infected hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Young-Kyun Lee; Kee Haeng Lee; Jae-Hwi Nho; Yong-Chan Ha; Kyung-Hoi Koo
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2013-04-28       Impact factor: 3.717

View more
  7 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: Does Suture Type Influence Bacterial Retention and Biofilm Formation After Irrigation in a Mouse Model?

Authors:  Daniel J Stinner
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  The Role of One-Stage Exchange for Prosthetic Joint Infection.

Authors:  Fiachra E Rowan; Matthew J Donaldson; Jurek R Pietrzak; Fares S Haddad
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2018-09

3.  Partial component-retained two-stage reconstruction for chronic infection after uncemented total hip arthroplasty: results of sixteen cases after five years of follow-up.

Authors:  Kun-Hui Chen; Shang-Wen Tsai; Po-Kuei Wu; Cheng-Fong Chen; Hsin-Yi Wang; Wei-Ming Chen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-05-27       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Two stage revision hip arthroplasty in periprosthetic joint infection. Comparison study: with or without the use of a spacer.

Authors:  Dariusz Marczak; Marek Synder; Marcin Sibiński; Michał Polguj; Julian Dudka; Jacek Kowalczewski
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Hip and Knee Section, Treatment, Surgical Technique: Proceedings of International Consensus on Orthopedic Infections.

Authors:  Moneer M Abouljoud; David Backstein; Andrew Battenberg; Matthew Dietz; Alejo Erice; Andrew A Freiberg; Jeffrey Granger; Adam Katchky; Anton Khlopas; Tae-Kyun Kim; Per Kjaersgaard-Andersen; Kyung-Hoi Koo; Yona Kosashvili; Percia Lazarovski; Jennifer Leighton; Adolph Lombardi; Konstantinos Malizos; Jorge Manrique; Michael A Mont; Marianthe Papanagiotoy; Rafael J Sierra; Nipun Sodhi; John Stammers; Maik Stiehler; Timothy L Tan; Katsufumi Uchiyama; Derek Ward; Anna Ziogkou
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2018-10-19       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Partial Single Stage Exchange Arthroplasty With Retention of a Well Fixed Cemented Femoral Stem for the Treatment of Culture Negative Infection in a Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty: A Case Report.

Authors:  Marlon M Mencia; Shamir O Cawich; Nemandra Sandiford
Journal:  Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil       Date:  2021-03-11

7.  A Decision Support Framework for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Treatment: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Two Modeling Approaches.

Authors:  Vasiliy N Leonenko; Yulia E Kaliberda; Yulia V Muravyova; Vasiliy A Artyukh
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-07-26
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.