INTRODUCTION: This study aims to investigate whether patients undergoing two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) and one-stage revision THA for aseptic reasons have similar clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction during their post-operative follow-up. We hypothesise that the two-stage revision THA for PJI is associated with poorer outcomes as compared to aseptic revision THA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed prospectively collected data in our tertiary hospital arthroplasty registry and identified patients who underwent revision THA between 2001 and 2014, with a minimum of two years follow-up. The study group (two-stage revision THA for PJI) consists of 23 patients and the control group (one-stage revision THA for aseptic reasons) consists of 231 patients. Patient demographics, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Short Form-36 (SF-36) scores and patient reported satisfaction were evaluated. Student's t-test was used to compare continuous variables between the two groups. Statistical significance was defined as p <0.05. RESULTS: The pre-operative demographics and clinical scores were relatively similar between the two groups of patients. At two years, patients who underwent revision THA for PJI reported a better WOMAC Pain Score and OHS as compared to aseptic revision THA. A similar proportion of patients were satisfied with their results of surgery in both groups (p=0.093). CONCLUSIONS: Although patients who underwent revision THA for PJI had poorer pre-operative functional scores (WOMAC function and SF-36 PF), at two years follow-up, these two groups of patients have comparable post-operative outcomes. Interestingly, patients who had revision THA for PJI reported a better clinical outcome in terms of OHS and WOMAC Pain score as compared to the aseptic group. We conclude that the revision THA for PJI is not inferior to aseptic revision THA in terms of patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: This study aims to investigate whether patients undergoing two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) and one-stage revision THA for aseptic reasons have similar clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction during their post-operative follow-up. We hypothesise that the two-stage revision THA for PJI is associated with poorer outcomes as compared to aseptic revision THA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed prospectively collected data in our tertiary hospital arthroplasty registry and identified patients who underwent revision THA between 2001 and 2014, with a minimum of two years follow-up. The study group (two-stage revision THA for PJI) consists of 23 patients and the control group (one-stage revision THA for aseptic reasons) consists of 231 patients. Patient demographics, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Short Form-36 (SF-36) scores and patient reported satisfaction were evaluated. Student's t-test was used to compare continuous variables between the two groups. Statistical significance was defined as p <0.05. RESULTS: The pre-operative demographics and clinical scores were relatively similar between the two groups of patients. At two years, patients who underwent revision THA for PJI reported a better WOMAC Pain Score and OHS as compared to aseptic revision THA. A similar proportion of patients were satisfied with their results of surgery in both groups (p=0.093). CONCLUSIONS: Although patients who underwent revision THA for PJI had poorer pre-operative functional scores (WOMAC function and SF-36 PF), at two years follow-up, these two groups of patients have comparable post-operative outcomes. Interestingly, patients who had revision THA for PJI reported a better clinical outcome in terms of OHS and WOMAC Pain score as compared to the aseptic group. We conclude that the revision THA for PJI is not inferior to aseptic revision THA in terms of patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes.
Authors: Gracia Etienne; Barry Waldman; Amar D Rajadhyaksha; Phillip S Ragland; Michael A Mont Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2003 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Steven Kurtz; Fionna Mowat; Kevin Ong; Nathan Chan; Edmund Lau; Michael Halpern Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Jason B T Lim; Andrew C C Chou; William Yeo; Ngai Nung Lo; Shi-Lu Chia; Pak Lin Chin; Darren K J Tay; Seng Jin Yeo Journal: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Date: 2015-04-19
Authors: Aileen M Davis; Zoe Agnidis; Elizabeth Badley; Alex Kiss; James P Waddell; Allan E Gross Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Khaled J Saleh; Margaret Celebrezze; Rida Kassim; Daryll C Dykes; Terence J Gioe; John J Callaghan; Eduardo A Salvati Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Argyris C Hadjimichael; Athanasios F Foukas; Angelos Kaspiris; Dimitris Vasileiou; Spyros Kamariotis; Antonios Stylianakis; Elias S Vasiliadis; Olga D Savvidou; Athanasios Antonopoulos Journal: Infect Prev Pract Date: 2022-07-12