Similar outcomes between two-stage revisions for infection and aseptic hip revisions

Hoberg, Maik; Konrads, Christian; Engelien, Jana; Oschmann, Dorothee; Holder, Michael G.; Walcher, Matthias; Steinert, Andre F.; Rudert, Maximilian

doi:10.1007/s00264-015-2850-3

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For both scores, postoperative results were higher than preoperative results. The results of these scores were comparable to results after both two-stage revision and aseptic revision found in other studies 21 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Results and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) after One-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip: A Single-centre Retrospective Study

Kuiper

Rustenburg

Willems

et al. 2018

J. Bone Joint Infect.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Little is known about functional outcome and quality of life (QoL) after one-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip.Methods: a cohort of 30 subjects treated with one-stage revision between 2011 and 2015 was identified, and questionnaires on functional outcome and QoL were distributed.Results: 28 subjects were successfully treated (93%). Most subjects were referred from other hospitals. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus was found in 50% of the cases, and 40% of all cultured bacteria were multidrug-resistant. 25% had subsequent revision surgery, unrelated to PJI. Functional outcome was good and QoL scores were high, comparable to prosthetic joint revision surgery in general.Conclusion: Although the cohort was small and statistical analysis was not performed, this study showed that excellent results can be obtained with one-stage revision for hip PJI. Functional outcome and QoL was comparable to prosthetic joint revision surgery in general.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Results and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) after One-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip: A Single-centre Retrospective Study

Kuiper

Rustenburg

Willems

et al. 2018

J. Bone Joint Infect.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Harris hip scores assessed at the end of the 2-year followup with a mean of 82 ± 16 points were similar to those reported in other studies with one-stage revisions with mean scores between 77 and 84 and two-stage septic revisions with scores between 73.4 and 84.3 (Table 1) [5,[7][8][9][17][18][19]. Citak et al [8] calculated, in a literature review of 1631 two-stage revisions, a mean Harris hip score of 84.3 using a surgeon-made articulating spacer and 81.8 with a preformed hip spacer.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Single-stage Acetabular Revision During Two-stage THA Revision for Infection is Effective in Selected Patients

Fink

Schlumberger

Oremek

2017

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6,7 For revision arthroplasty of the hip, similar outcomes between septic two-stage revisions and aseptic onestage revisions have been reported in 2016, suggesting that the additional surgical trauma in a two-stage concept does not deteriorate the clinical outcome. 8 Now, in the conducted study regarding revision TKA, our results showed that this principle also seems to be true regarding the knee joint: the clinical outcome of patients who had received two-stage revision TKA for infection was similar to the outcome of patients who had received aseptic one-stage revision TKA.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Similar Outcomes of Two-Stage Revisions for Infection and One-Stage Revisions for Aseptic Revisions of Knee Endoprostheses

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two-stage revision knee arthroplasty using an antibiotic-loaded spacer is the most widely performed procedure for infected knee arthroplasties. The clinical outcome of this type of surgery compared with aseptic joint revision with exchange of tibial and femoral components is still controversial. Therefore, we analyzed clinical outcomes of septic two-stage revisions compared with aseptic one-stage revision total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). In a retrospective study, we assessed 135 consecutive patients who underwent two-stage revision for septic TKA (52 patients) and one-stage aseptic total knee revision arthroplasty (83 patients). The average follow-up was 26.1 months for the aseptic group and 26.5 months for the septic group. For clinical evaluation, we used the Knee Society Score, Oxford Knee Score, Kujala score, Turba score, and the Short Form 36 (SF-36). Postoperative pain level was determined using the visual analog pain scale. The surgeries were performed 51 months (aseptic group) and 24 months (septic group) after primary TKA on average. The main indications for aseptic revision surgeries were instability (40%), aseptic loosening (22.4%), anterior knee pain due to pathologies of the patella (11.8%), or material wear (5.9%). In the clinical outcome, patients achieved 124.8 points in the aseptic group and 105.4 points in the septic group in the Knee Society Score. The Oxford Knee Score revealed 29.9 points for the aseptic group and 33.9 points for the septicgroup. For the Kujala score, we found 53.2 points in the aseptic group and 48.5 points in the septic group. For the Turba score, we found 8.4 points in the aseptic group and 10.8 points in the septic group. The SF-36 (psychical) showed 52.2 versus 49.5 points and the SF-36 (physical) showed 36.5 versus 35.4 points. Mean level of persisting pain on the visual analog scale was 3.0 (aseptic group) and 3.5 (septic group). Performing septic two-stage or aseptic one-stage tibial and femoral revision knee arthroplasty showed similar clinical outcomes in relation to objective and subjective outcome measures.

show abstract

Similar outcomes between two-stage revisions for infection and aseptic hip revisions

Cited by 15 publications

References 40 publications

Results and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) after One-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip: A Single-centre Retrospective Study

Results and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) after One-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip: A Single-centre Retrospective Study

Single-stage Acetabular Revision During Two-stage THA Revision for Infection is Effective in Selected Patients

Similar Outcomes of Two-Stage Revisions for Infection and One-Stage Revisions for Aseptic Revisions of Knee Endoprostheses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About