Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

FAILURE AFTER REVISION THR BECAUSE OF DEEP INFECTION



Abstract

Of 960 first-revision total hip replacements (THR) because of deep infection identified in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Registry, 16.9% were treated with a permanent implant extraction, while a staged or direct reconstruction revision protocol were employed in 56.2% and 26.9% respectively. The majority of the interventions were performed more than one year after index THR, and the dominating pathogen was coagulase negative staphylococci (CNS). We found a significant shift in types of bacteria over the years (Chi-square test, p smaller than 0.001): an increase in the CNS group and a decrease in Gram-negative aerobes. Patients treated with a permanent resection were generally older (p< 0.001), had more often a previous ipsilateral hip fracture (p< 0.001), and had more frequently Gram-negative infections (p=0.02). No systematic differences in patient characteristics or pathogens were detected between one-stage or two-stage procedures, of which the latter had a median re-implantation time of 2 (range: 0.2–62) months. Of 798 (one- or two-stage) revisions, 60 (7.5%) were revised again due to recurrent infection, with no difference between the two methods, and implying a 10-year survival of 90%; 95% confidence interval (CI95%) 88.2–93.0. Previous surgery for soft-tissue problems (RR 3.2 (CI95% 1.3–7.2)) predicted a worse outcome for one-stage procedures. The prognosis of two-staged revisions improved with increasing re-implantation interval (RR 0.8 (CI95% 0.7–1.0)) per month, and a 6 month interval carried the lowest risk of repeat revision due to infection; RR 0.1 (CI95% 0.0–0.9). Staged revisions in female patients (RR 2.3, (CI95% 0.9–5.7)) and with Staphylococcus aureus infections (RR 2.3 (CI95% 0.9–5.5)) predicted a worse outcome. Ten-year survival with repeat revision for aseptic loosening as end-point was 89% (95%CI 85.7–92.0), but decreased to 79% when all reasons for revision were taken into account (95%CI 75.0–82.3) mainly because of revision for peri-prosthetic fractures.

The results suggest that direct and staged revision protocols can have a good prognosis on a national level, but efforts must be made to counteract periprosthetic fractures and the high incidence of permanent implant extraction in elderly patients.

Correspondence should be addressed to: EFORT Central Office, Technoparkstrasse 1, CH – 8005 Zürich, Switzerland. Tel: +41 44 448 44 00; Email: office@efort.org

Author: Marieke Ostendorf, Netherlands

E-mail: m.ostendorf@planet.nl