Cementless two-staged total hip arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection.
- Author:
	        		
		        		
		        		
			        		Hao SHEN
			        		
			        		
			        		
			        			1
			        			
			        		
			        		
			        		
			        		
			        		;
		        		
		        		
		        		
			        		Qiao-jie WANG
			        		
			        		;
		        		
		        		
		        		
			        		Xian-long ZHANG
			        		
			        		;
		        		
		        		
		        		
			        		Yao JIANG
			        		
			        		;
		        		
		        		
		        		
			        		Qi WANG
			        		
			        		;
		        		
		        		
		        		
			        		Yun-su CHEN
			        		
			        		;
		        		
		        		
		        		
			        		Jun-jie SHAO
			        		
			        		
		        		
		        		
		        		
			        		
			        		Author Information
			        		
 - Publication Type:Journal Article
 - MeSH: Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; administration & dosage; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; instrumentation; methods; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Hip Prosthesis; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Prosthesis-Related Infections; surgery; Retrospective Studies
 - From: Chinese Journal of Surgery 2012;50(5):402-406
 - CountryChina
 - Language:Chinese
 - 
		        	Abstract:
			       	
			       		
				        
				        	
OBJECTIVETo determine the clinical outcomes of two-staged cementless revision arthroplasty for the treatment of deep periprosthetic infection after total hip arthroplasty.
METHODSTwenty-three patients with deep periprosthetic infection treated with a standard protocol of two-staged cementless revision hip arthroplasty were enrolled in this study. There were 9 male patients and 14 female patients with an average age of 64 years (range, 52-78 years). In all cases, antibiotics-loaded cement spacers were implanted after removal of all the prosthetic components and thorough debridements had been done. All patients had a minimum of 2 weeks of intravenous antibiotics followed by 4 weeks of oral antibiotics after implant removal. After a mean interval of 6.7 months (3-28 months), revision arthroplasties were carried out with cementless femoral components followed by 2 weeks of intravenous antibiotics and 4 weeks of oral antibiotics.
RESULTSThe mean follow-up period was (4.3±3.5) years. There were 2 cases of recurrent infections in this study. Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures were observed in 3 patients. One patient had dislocation of the implanted spacer during the interval period and 2 patients had hip dislocation after reimplantation. Mild subsidence of femoral component occurred in 1 patient. There were no cases of loosening of femoral components and cementless acetabular components in patients without infection recurrence. The Harris hip score increased from a preoperative mean of 36±13 to 85±13 at 12 months after reimplantation.
CONCLUSIONSUsing cementless prostheses in two-staged revisions of hip periprosthetic infections can provide low rate of infection recurrence and good implant stability, but cautions must be taken when treating patients with infection caused by multidrug-resistant organisms.
 
            