Partial implant retention in two-stage exchange for chronic infected total hip arthroplasty

2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 461-469
Author(s):  
Xiaojun Shi ◽  
Jing Yang ◽  
Zongke Zhou ◽  
Bin Shen ◽  
Pengde Kang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Implant Retention

Bilateral Total Hip Arthroplasty: One-Stage or Two-Stage

2021 ◽  
pp. 23-40
Author(s):  
Ricardo Fernández-Fernández ◽  
Ana Cruz-Pardos ◽  
Eduardo García-Rey
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
One Stage

Two-Stage Cementless Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Infected Primary Hip Arthroplasties

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (9) ◽  
pp. 1597-1601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yalkin Camurcu ◽  
Hakan Sofu ◽  
Abdul Fettah Buyuk ◽  
Sarper Gursu ◽  
Mehmet Akif Kaygusuz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Hip Arthroplasties

scholarly journals Two-Stage Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Infections Using Antibiotic-Impregnated Cement Spacers of Various Types and Materials

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katsufumi Uchiyama ◽  
Naonobu Takahira ◽  
Kensuke Fukushima ◽  
Mitsutoshi Moriya ◽  
Takeaki Yamamoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Periprosthetic Infections

scholarly journals Two-stage total hip arthroplasty for patients with advanced active tuberculosis of the hip

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Liangjun Li ◽  
Ke Chou ◽  
Jianliang Deng ◽  
Feng Shen ◽  
Zhiyong He ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Active Tuberculosis ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Total Hip

Treatment outcome of two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty for infected hip arthroplasty using antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer

2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naonobu Takahira ◽  
Moritoshi Itoman ◽  
Kei Higashi ◽  
Katsufumi Uchiyama ◽  
Motoi Miyabe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Outcome ◽  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Cement Spacer ◽  
Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Total Hip

scholarly journals Extensively Coated Non-modular Stem Used in Two-stage Revision for Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty: Mid-term to Long-term Follow-up

2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bin Shen ◽  
Qiang Huang ◽  
Jing Yang ◽  
Zong-ke Zhou ◽  
Peng-de Kang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Modular Stem ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 36
Author(s):  
Sebastian Hardt ◽  
Vincent Justus Leopold ◽  
Thilo Khakzad ◽  
Matthias Pumberger ◽  
Carsten Perka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Stem ◽  
Femoral Fractures ◽  
Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Trochanteric Osteotomy ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy ◽  
Revision Tha

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document