Search

Background One-stage revision arthroplasty has currently a limited use in treatment of a periprosthetic infection despite obvious economic benefits in comparison with two-stage revisions. This operation involves the removal of all implant components, radical surgical debridement, joint irrigation, installation of a new implant, and a long course of antibiotic therapy. Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of one-stage revision arthroplasty in the treatment of patients with periprosthetic infection of the hip joint. Material and methods Results of treatment of 14 patients with periprosthetic hip infection who underwent the procedure of a single-stage revision arthroplasty in the period from 2009 to 2018 were analyzed. The average follow-up was 2.7 years (range, 1 to 10 years). Results Twelve (86 %) out of 14 patients with periprosthetic infection of the hip joint completed one-stage treatment successfully. Two (14 %) patients developed recurrent infection and had a two-stage revision arthroplasty using an antibacterial spacer. In accordance with the Harris Hip Score scale, the functional state of the limbs at a one-years follow-up after treatment averaged 77.7 points (range, 36 to 95). Conclusions One-stage revision is quite a laborious medical procedure, for which sufficient experience of orthopedic surgeons and a specialized hospital service. This method of treatment provided suppression of infection in 86 % of our cases. Negative factors in using one-stage revision were polymicrobial infection and implant dislocation in the early postoperative period.

Introduction Two-stage revision arthroplasty is the "gold standard" of surgical treatment of periprosthetic infection in most domestic and foreign hospitals. This technique involves removal of implant components, debridement of the purulent focus and installation of a cement spacer which is subsequently replaced with a permanent implant after 3–9 months. Purpose To evaluate mid-term results of two-stage surgical treatment of patients with chronic periprosthetic infection of the knee and hip joints. Materials and methods Treatment outcomes of 172 patients with periprosthetic infection who underwent two-stage revision arthroplasty in the period from 2011 to 2015 were assessed. Among them, 113 patients developed infection after hip replacement and 59 patients had infected knee joint. The average follow-up period was 4 ± 1.58 years (range: 2 to 6 years). Results Out of 113 two-stage procedures of hip joint revision, 102 (90.2%) cases showed an arrest of infection. Four (3.6%) patients with recurrence of the purulent process underwent resection arthroplasty, another four (3.6%) rejected to replace the spacer with an implant, and three (2.6%) had a two-stage re-revision. Out of 60 (59 patients) procedures of a two-stage knee joint revision, infection was arrested in 50 (83.3%) cases; eight (13.4%) had recurrence and underwent knee arthrodesis. One (1.6 %) refused to replace a spacer for an implant, and one more (1.6%) had a two-stage repeated revision. Conclusions Two-stage knee and hip revision arthroplasty using a cement spacer is an effective option for treatment of chronic periprosthetic infection. It provides infection control in 86.7% (83.3% for knee and 90.2 % for hip joints) of cases in the mid-term follow-up period up to 5 years. However, the rate of re-infection remains significant and reaches 13.3 % (9.8% for hip and 16.7 % for knee joints).