BACKGROUND: It is commonly stated that identification of the infecting organism is a prerequisite to single-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip for deep infection. We have performed single-stage revision in a series of patients where the organism was not identified preoperatively. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the rate of infection eradication following single-stage revision was affected by preoperative knowledge of the infecting organism. METHODS: We identified all patients who had undergone a single-stage revision for a deep infection at our hospital between 2006 and 2015. One hundred five patients were assigned into 2 groups based upon whether the infecting organism had been identified preoperatively (group A = 28) or not (group B = 77). RESULTS: The reinfection rates were 3.6% in group A and 9.1% for group B (P = .679). Re-revision rates were 7.1% and 9.1%, respectively (P = 1.00). Overall, the implant survival rate at 6 years was 87.9% (95% confidence interval, 97.4-78.4). In group B, preoperative aspiration was performed in 36.4% (28/77) of cases. Staphylococci species were the predominant causative organisms, with gram-negative involvement in 19.0% (20/105) of cases. CONCLUSION: The rate of infection eradication and overall survivorship with single-stage revision was similar in our series to that reported in the literature. While desirable, we did not find identification of the infecting organism before surgery influenced the outcome. Given the functional and economic benefits of single-stage revision, we suggest that failure to identify an organism is not an absolute contraindication to this approach.
BACKGROUND: It is commonly stated that identification of the infecting organism is a prerequisite to single-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip for deep infection. We have performed single-stage revision in a series of patients where the organism was not identified preoperatively. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the rate of infection eradication following single-stage revision was affected by preoperative knowledge of the infecting organism. METHODS: We identified all patients who had undergone a single-stage revision for a deep infection at our hospital between 2006 and 2015. One hundred five patients were assigned into 2 groups based upon whether the infecting organism had been identified preoperatively (group A = 28) or not (group B = 77). RESULTS: The reinfection rates were 3.6% in group A and 9.1% for group B (P = .679). Re-revision rates were 7.1% and 9.1%, respectively (P = 1.00). Overall, the implant survival rate at 6 years was 87.9% (95% confidence interval, 97.4-78.4). In group B, preoperative aspiration was performed in 36.4% (28/77) of cases. Staphylococci species were the predominant causative organisms, with gram-negative involvement in 19.0% (20/105) of cases. CONCLUSION: The rate of infection eradication and overall survivorship with single-stage revision was similar in our series to that reported in the literature. While desirable, we did not find identification of the infecting organism before surgery influenced the outcome. Given the functional and economic benefits of single-stage revision, we suggest that failure to identify an organism is not an absolute contraindication to this approach.