Intermediate-term clinical effects of two-staged revision for hip periprosthetic joint infection
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-4203.2019.07.007
- VernacularTitle:二期翻修术治疗髋关节假体周围感染的中期疗效分析
- Author:
Lifeng MA
1
;
Ai GUO
;
Qiang LI
;
Jie WU
;
Naicheng DIAO
;
Bo YANG
;
Fei YU
;
Difan WANG
;
Jinjiang YANG
Author Information
1. 首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院骨科 100050
- Keywords:
Arthropalsty,replacement,hip;
Prosthesis-related infections;
Reoperation;
Device removal;
Treatment outcome
- From:
International Journal of Surgery
2019;46(7):459-464
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To explore the validity of two-staged revision for hip periprosthetic joint injection and intermediate-term clinical effects.Methods The clinical data of 31 cases who were underwent two-staged revision for unilateral hip periprosthetic joint infection in Department of Orthopaedics,Beijing Friendship Hospital,Capital Medical University from March 2014 to September 2016 were analyzed retrospectively.There were 13 males and 18 females,aged (67.5 ±7.8) years,with an age range of 52-79 years.All patients underwent two-staged revision,taking preoperative and intraoperative joint puncture fluid,intraoperative infection of soft tissue for bacterial culture was to clear medication.In first stage,prosthesis removed,debridement performed and antibiotic spacer implanted were performed.Antibiotics were used for 8 to 12 weeks for infection.In second stage,total hip arthroplasty revision was performed while infection was controlled.Harris hip scores,Short form 36 health status scores (SF-36),white blood cell counts,C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)were compared between preoperative and postoperative follow-up in all patients,and postoperative complications were recorded.Postoperative outpatient follow-up was 30.1 to 59.3 months,and reviewed every 12 months after 3 months,6 months,and 12 months.The follow-up deadline was April 2019.Measurement data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (Mean ± SD).The t test was used to compare the preoperative and postoperative follow-up.Results All 29 patients were followed up for follow-up except 2 patients were lost to follow-up.Preoperative Harris hip score,SF-36,white blood cell count,CRP and ESR were (39.4 ± 5.6) scores,(398.8 ± 39.2) scores,(12.5 ± 0.6) × 109/L,(63.3 ± 10.1) mg/L and (83.7 ± 12.5) mm/h,respectively.The last follow-up oftbe above indicators were (76.9 ±9.3) scores,(649.3 ±67.5) scores,(9.1 ±0.5) × 109/L,(5.3 ± 1.7) mg/L and (10.2 ± 1.6) mm/h,respectively.The results of final followed-up were much better than the preoperative results and there were significant differences between postoperation and preoperation for all indexes.One patient developed postoperative hip dislocation and was treated with manual reduction under general anesthesia.The two patients were diagnosed hip periprosthetic joint infection of joint at 8 months and 15 months respectively after two-staged revision and treated by removing the hip prosthesis.One patient was performed revision again and the other was not performed any operation for poor health condition.The remaining 26 patients had no complications.Conclusions Two-staged revision for periprosthetic joint infection of hip joint can not only treat infection effectively but also can recover hip function significantly.The early and intermediate-term clinical effects of the surgical treatment is satisfied.
