Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy with Intermediate Resection Arthroplasty Is Safe for Use in Two-Stage Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Infection

被引:5
作者
Hardt, Sebastian [1 ]
Leopold, Vincent Justus [1 ]
Khakzad, Thilo [1 ]
Pumberger, Matthias [1 ]
Perka, Carsten [1 ]
Hipfl, Christian [1 ]
机构
[1] Charite Univ Med Berlin, Dept Orthopaed, Ctr Musculoskeletal Surg, Charitepl 1, D-10117 Berlin, Germany
关键词
extended trochanteric osteotomy; revision total hip arthroplasty; periprosthetic infection; two-stage revision; resection arthroplasty; reinfection; PERIPROSTHETIC JOINT INFECTION; EXCHANGE ARTHROPLASTY; FEMORAL OSTEOTOMY; CEMENT SPACERS; CLASSIFICATION; COMPLICATIONS; RECONSTRUCTION; PROSTHESIS; FRACTURES; DIAGNOSIS;
D O I
10.3390/jcm11010036
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: This study sought to compare the results of two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic infection (PJI) in patients with and without the use of an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) for removal of a well-fixed femoral stem or cement. Methods: Thirty-two patients who had undergone an ETO as part of a two-stage revision without spacer placement were matched 1:2 with a cohort of sixty-four patients of the same sex and age who had stem removal without any osteotomy. Clinical outcomes including interim revision, reinfection and aseptic failure rates were evaluated. Modified Harris hip scores (mHHS) were calculated. Minimum follow-up was two years. Results: Patients undergoing ETO had a significantly lower rate of interim re-debridement compared to non-ETO patients (0% vs. 14.1%, p = 0.026). Reinfection following reimplantation was similar in both groups (12.5% in ETO patients vs. 9.4% in non-ETO patients, p = 0.365). Revision for aseptic reason was necessary in 12.5% in the ETO group and 14.1% in the non-ETO group (p = 0.833). Periprosthetic femoral fractures were seen in three patients (3.1%), of which all occurred in non-ETO patients. Dislocation was the most common complication, which was equally distributed in both groups (12.5%). The mean mHHS was 37.7 in the ETO group and 37.3 in the non-ETO group, and these scores improved significantly in both groups following reimplantation (p < 0.01). Conclusion: ETO without the use of spacer is a safe and effective method to manage patients with well-fixed femoral stems and for thorough cement removal in two-stage revision THA for PJI. While it might reduce the rate of repeated debridement in the interim period, the use of ETO appears to lead to similar reinfection rates following reimplantation.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]   High cure rate of periprosthetic hip joint infection with multidisciplinary team approach using standardized two-stage exchange [J].
Akguen, Doruk ;
Mueller, Michael ;
Perka, Carsten ;
Winkler, Tobias .
JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH, 2019, 14 (1)
[2]   An often-unrecognized entity as cause of recurrent infection after successfully treated two-stage exchange arthroplasty: hematogenous infection [J].
Akguen, Doruk ;
Mueller, Michael ;
Perka, Carsten ;
Winkler, Tobias .
ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY, 2018, 138 (09) :1199-1206
[3]   Vancomycin-Loaded Polymethylmethacrylate Spacers Fail to Eradicate Periprosthetic Joint Infection in a Clinically Representative Mouse Model [J].
Carli, Alberto, V ;
Bhimani, Samrath ;
Yang, Xu ;
Bentley, Karen L. de Mesy ;
Ross, F. Patrick ;
Bostrom, Mathias P. G. .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2018, 100 (11)
[4]   Complications associated with reimplantation after Girdlestone arthroplasty [J].
Charlton, WPH ;
Hozack, WJ ;
Teloken, MA ;
Rao, R ;
Bissett, GA .
CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2003, (407) :119-126
[5]  
Della Valle CJ, 2003, J BONE JOINT SURG AM, V85A, P1
[6]   Complications with cement spacers in 2-stage treatment of periprosthetic joint infection on total hip replacement [J].
Erivan, R. ;
Lecointe, T. ;
Villatte, G. ;
Mulliez, A. ;
Descamps, S. ;
Boisgard, S. .
ORTHOPAEDICS & TRAUMATOLOGY-SURGERY & RESEARCH, 2018, 104 (03) :333-339
[7]   Sonication versus Vortexing of Implants for Diagnosis of Prosthetic Joint Infection [J].
Eugenia Portillo, Maria ;
Salvado, Margarita ;
Trampuz, Andrej ;
Plasencia, Virginia ;
Rodriguez-Villasante, Maria ;
Sorli, Lluisa ;
Puig, Lluis ;
Pablo Horcajada, Juan .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2013, 51 (02) :591-594
[8]   Mechanical complications with one hundred and thirty eight (antibiotic-laden) cement spacers in the treatment of periprosthetic infection after total hip arthroplasty [J].
Faschingbauer, Martin ;
Reichel, Heiko ;
Bieger, Ralf ;
Kappe, Thomas .
INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2015, 39 (05) :989-994
[9]   The Transfemoral Approach for Removal of Well-Fixed Femoral Stems in 2-Stage Septic Hip Revision [J].
Fink, Bernd ;
Oremek, Damian .
JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2016, 31 (05) :1065-1071
[10]   Impact of Hip Antibiotic Spacer Dislocation on Final Implant Position and Outcomes [J].
Garceau, Simon ;
Warschawski, Yaniv ;
Sanders, Ethan ;
Gross, Allan ;
Safir, Oleg ;
Kuzyk, Paul .
JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2019, 34 (09) :2107-2110