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

Purpose Two-stage revision hip arthroplasty using an antibiotic-loaded spacer is the most widely performed procedure for infected hip arthroplasties. The clinical outcome of this type of surgery compared with aseptic joint revision with exchange of femoral and acetabular components is still controversial due to the relative lack of medium- to long-term follow-up. Therefore, we analysed clinical and radiological outcomes of septic two-stage revisions compared with aseptic hip revision surgeries. Methods In this retrospective study we assessed 82 consecutive patients who underwent two-stage revision for septic total hip (45 patients) or one-stage aseptic revision arthroplasty (37 patients). The average follow-up was 53 months for the aseptic group and 55 months for the septic group. For clinical evaluation, we used the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and the Merle d'Aubign, and Postel score. The postoperative pain level was determined with the visual analogue pain scale. Results The surgeries were performed 124 months (aseptic group) and 119 months (septic group) after primary total hip arthroplasty on average. The main indications for aseptic revision surgeries were aseptic loosening (96 %), dislocation (2.2 %), and periprosthetic fracture (2.2 %). In the clinical outcome patients achieved 75.5 points in the aseptic group and 73.4 points in the septic group in the Harris Hip Score. The Merle d'Aubign, and Postel Score revealed 12.5 points for the aseptic group and 13.1 points for the septic group. Mean level of persisting pain was 0.8 (aseptic group) and 0.4 (septic group) on the visual analogue scale (VAS). Overall survival in the aseptic group was 85.6 % at 9.8 years 82.7 % at 10.1 years for the septic group, with a repeat revision rate of 8.1 % and 6.7 %, respectively. Conclusions Performing aseptic acetabular and femoral revision hip arthroplasty showed equal clinical outcomes in relation to septic two-stage revision hip surgeries. Our results showed a tendency for better outcome in comparison with the information given in the literature for septic and nonseptic exchange arthroplasties, including a lower rate of re-revisions.