Long-Term Results of a 2-Stage Exchange Protocol for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Total Hip Arthroplasty in 164 Hips

被引:64
|
作者
Petis, Stephen M. [1 ]
Abdel, Matthew P. [1 ]
Perry, Kevin I. [1 ]
Mabry, Tad M. [1 ]
Hanssen, Arlen D. [1 ]
Berry, Daniel J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Dept Orthoped Surg, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
来源
关键词
COMPETING RISKS; MSIS CRITERIA; REVISION; BURDEN; REIMPLANTATION; CLASSIFICATION; RECONSTRUCTION; STANDARD;
D O I
10.2106/JBJS.17.01103
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Limited data exist that show the long-term risks of reinfection and mechanical failure with a contemporary 2-stage exchange protocol for periprosthetic joint infection following total hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term reinfection and mechanical failure rates of 2-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty. Methods: We identified 164 hips (162 patients) with infection after total hip arthroplasty between 1991 and 2006 treated with a 2-stage exchange protocol with no prior treatment for periprosthetic joint infection. With regard to Musculoskeletal Infection Society diagnostic criteria, at least 1 major criterion or 4 of 6 minor criteria were fulfilled in 129 hips (79%). The cumulative incidence with a competing risk of death was calculated for reinfection, aseptic revisions, and all-cause revisions. The risk factors for reinfection were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Harris hip scores were calculated. The mean age at the time of spacer insertion was 68 years, and 35% of the patients were female. Excluding the patients with <2 years of follow-up, the mean follow-up was 12 years (range, 2 to 21 years). Results: The cumulative incidence of recurrence of infection was 10% at 1 year, 14% at 5 years, and 15% at 10 and 15 years. Seventeen patients (11%) used chronic antibiotic suppression (>6 months), with 7 (41%) of these having recurrent infection at the time of the latest follow-up. Use of chronic antibiotic suppression was the only predictive factor for reinfection (hazard ratio, 4.5 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.9 to 10.9]; p = 0.001). The cumulative incidence of aseptic femoral and acetabular revisions was 2.6% at 5 years and 3.3% at 10 and 15 years. The cumulative incidence of all-cause revisions was 15% at 5 years and 16% at 10 and 15 years. Dislocation was the most common complication, with 28 dislocations occurring in 20 patients (12%). The mean Harris hip score improved from 52 points prior to spacer insertion to 70 points at 15 years after reimplantation (p < 0.01). Conclusions: The rate of recurrence of infection of 15% for up to 15 years after total hip arthroplasty was similar to previous shorter-term reports of 2-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection. Surgeons should anticipate mitigating instability after reimplantation. Implant survivorship free of aseptic loosening and clinical outcomes were preserved for the long term. The role of chronic antibiotic suppression in the long-term treatment of periprosthetic joint infection requires further investigation.
引用
收藏
页码:74 / 84
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Defining Treatment Success After 2-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection
    Tan, Timothy L.
    Goswami, Karan
    Fillingham, Yale A.
    Shohat, Noam
    Rondon, Alexander J.
    Parvizi, Javad
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2018, 33 (11): : 3541 - 3546
  • [2] Long-Term Outcomes of Staged Revision Surgery for Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection of Total Hip Arthroplasty
    Day, Christopher W.
    Costi, Kerry
    Pannach, Susan
    Atkins, Gerald J.
    Hofstaetter, Jochen G.
    Callary, Stuart A.
    Nelson, Renjy
    Howie, Donald W.
    Solomon, Lucian B.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2022, 11 (01)
  • [3] Two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection following total hip arthroplasty
    Fowler, Timothy J.
    Sayers, Adrian
    Whitehouse, Michael R.
    [J]. ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, 2019, 7
  • [4] Complications with cement spacers in 2-stage treatment of periprosthetic joint infection on total hip replacement
    Erivan, R.
    Lecointe, T.
    Villatte, G.
    Mulliez, A.
    Descamps, S.
    Boisgard, S.
    [J]. ORTHOPAEDICS & TRAUMATOLOGY-SURGERY & RESEARCH, 2018, 104 (03) : 333 - 339
  • [5] Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With High Attrition Rate and Mortality
    Barton, Cameron B.
    Wang, David L.
    An, Qiang
    Brown, Timothy S.
    Callaghan, John J.
    Otero, Jesse E.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2020, 35 (05): : 1384 - 1389
  • [6] Local Antibiotic Infusion in Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Total Hip Arthroplasty
    Jarusriwanna, Atthakorn
    Mu, Wenbo
    Parvizi, Javad
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2024, 13 (16)
  • [7] Two-Stage Exchange Protocol for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Total Knee Arthroplasty in 245 Knees without Prior Treatment for Infection
    Petis, Stephen M.
    Perry, Kevin I.
    Mabry, Tad M.
    Hanssen, Arlen D.
    Berry, Daniel J.
    Abdel, Matthew P.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2019, 101 (03): : 239 - 249
  • [8] Survival and Outcomes of 1.5-Stage vs 2-Stage Exchange Total Knee Arthroplasty Following Prosthetic Joint Infection
    Nabet, Austin
    Sax, Oliver C.
    Shanoada, Roni
    Conway, Janet D.
    Mont, Michael A.
    Delanois, Ronald E.
    Nace, James
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2022, 37 (05): : 936 - 941
  • [9] Periprosthetic Infection Recurrence After 2-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty: Failure or Fate?
    Triantafyllopoulos, Georgios K.
    Memtsoudis, Stavros G.
    Zhang, Wei
    Ma, Yan
    Sculco, Thomas P.
    Poultsides, Lazaros A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2017, 32 (02): : 526 - 531
  • [10] Arthritic destruction of the hip joint and long-term results of treatment by Charnley total hip arthroplasty
    Lehtimäki, MY
    [J]. ANNALES CHIRURGIAE ET GYNAECOLOGIAE, 2001, 90 (02) : 125 - 126