| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2016 | Volume
: 51
| Issue : 2 | Page : 101-110 |
|
|
Single-stage versus two-stage revision of total hip replacement for contained periprosthetic infection
Ayman M Ebied PhD, FRCS,
Department of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Menoufia University Hospital, Menoufia, Egypt
Correspondence Address:
Ayman M Ebied
Number 3, El Zahraa Tower, Gamal Abdul Naser Street, Sharaf Square, Shebin El Kom
Egypt
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/1110-1148.203142
|
|
|
Objective
In this article, single-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic hip infection was compared with the two-stage revision protocol in patients without draining sinuses.
Background
Staged revision for periprosthetic infection of the hip is an accepted and widely used technique by many surgeons. However, single-stage exchange of the hip prosthesis remains an attractive option to some.
Patients and methods
Fifty-two patients with evidence of periprosthetic infection underwent preoperative aspiration of the affected hip. The organism was identified in 33/52 patients, and single-stage revision was performed. The remaining 19 patients underwent two-stage exchange arthroplasty. All patients had cemented cup and long cementless stem.
Results
At an average 4 years (range: 2–7 years) postoperatively, only one case of persistent infection was found in the single-stage group, which showed a success rate of 97%, in comparison with 95% success rate in the staged protocol.
Conclusion
Single-stage exchange achieves excellent success rates in patients with contained infection when the organism is identified preoperatively. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
