Search

Background The objective of our study is to evaluate our preliminary results after changing from a 2-stage revision arthroplasty protocol to a 1-stage revision arthroplasty protocol using cementless arthroplasty for all patients with chronic infected hip replacements. Methods Prospective study of all hip arthroplasties that were diagnosed with chronic infection and were treated using the 1-stage revision without taking into account the traditional criteria used to determine the use of a 1-stage revision was conducted. There were 2 main variables evaluated: infection control and costs. The definitive diagnosis of infection of the revision was determined using the criteria proposed by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. The costs were calculated using average cost in USD, excluding social expenses, as described by Klouche (2010) for 1-stage or 2-stage revisions. Results Nineteen patients were included in the study and the infection was controlled in 18 patients. The total economic savings for our hospital for these 19 patients was 391.609 USD. Conclusion This clinical success has led to an important change in our hospital in treating chronic infected hip replacements and an important cost reduction from an economic point of view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate our results with one-stage revision using cementless femoral stem for infected hip arthroplasties. Twenty-four patients were included in the study. The acetabular component was cemented in 9 cases. In 2 patients a structured bone allograft was necessary to fill an acetabular defect. After a mean follow-up of 44.6months, 23 patients showed no signs of infection (95.8%), the mean functional response according to the Merle d’Aubigné scale was 13.8 and the mean Harris Hip Score was 65.4. One-stage revision hip arthroplasty using cementless femoral stem was associated with a high success rate. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This study assesses the factors associated with the dislocation of the Spacer-G and its clinical prognosis. Seventy-four spacers were reviewed. Acetabular bone defects, proximal femoral cementation of the spacer and its relationship to the size of the head spacer were not associated with dislocation. The only variable that it was possible to associate with dislocation was when the previous stem, prior to the spacer placement, was a cemented stem. In patients who experienced a dislocation, infection was not cured during the interim period more frequently than patients who had not experienced a dislocation (P =0.001) and the final clinical hip evaluation was also worse (P <0.001). The study concludes that the surgeon should assess different surgical aspects in order to avoid mechanical complications such as dislocation and its consequences. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Different types of hip spacers have been described (hand-made, custom-molded or prefabricated) for treatment of a chronic hip infection. A potential disadvantage of monoblock prefabricated spacer is that it may cause acetabular bone loss. This study assesses the radiological acetabular erosion using an antibiotic-impregnated pre-fabricated polymethylmethacrylate Spacer-G. We retrospectively reviewed the radiographs of thirty five patients who were managed with Spacer-G to treat chronic hip infection. No acetabular erosion were observed in thirty two patients with a mean time from the first to second stage and from the first to the last radiograph of 5.09 and 3.77months respectively. In three patients the time between the radiographs was more than one year and the second stage was not performed; two developed a protrusion acetabuli whereas the other one a destruction of the acetabular roof. Using a Spacer-G in chronic hip infection treatment for less than one year is not associated with radiological acetabular erosion if the patient is maintained at partial weight bearing. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: The objective of our study is to evaluate our preliminary results after changing from a 2-stage revision arthroplasty protocol to a 1-stage revision arthroplasty protocol using cementless arthroplasty for all patients with chronic infected hip replacements.Methods: Prospective study of all hip arthroplasties that were diagnosed with chronic infection and were treated using the 1-stage revision without taking into account the traditional criteria used to determine the use of a 1-stage revision was conducted. There were 2 main variables evaluated: infection control and costs. The definitive diagnosis of infection of the revision was determined using the criteria proposed by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. The costs were calculated using average cost in USD, excluding social expenses, as described by Klouche (2010) for 1-stage or 2-stage revisions.Results: Nineteen patients were included in the study and the infection was controlled in 18 patients. The total economic savings for our hospital for these 19 patients was 391.609 USD.Conclusion: This clinical success has led to an important change in our hospital in treating chronic infected hip replacements and an important cost reduction from an economic point of view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]