Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ®

A Publication of The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons ®

Single-stage Acetabular Revision During Two-stage THA Revision for Infection is Effective in Selected Patients

Bernd Fink MD, Michael Schlumberger MD, Damian Oremek MD

Abstract

Background

The treatment of periprosthetic infections of hip arthroplasties typically involves use of either a single- or two-stage (with implantation of a temporary spacer) revision surgery. In patients with severe acetabular bone deficiencies, either already present or after component removal, spacers cannot be safely implanted. In such hips where it is impossible to use spacers and yet a two-stage revision of the prosthetic stem is recommended, we have combined a two-stage revision of the stem with a single revision of the cup. To our knowledge, this approach has not been reported before.

Questions/purposes

(1) What proportion of patients treated with single-stage acetabular reconstruction as part of a two-stage revision for an infected THA remain free from infection at 2 or more years? (2) What are the Harris hip scores after the first stage and at 2 years or more after the definitive reimplantation?

Methods

Between June 2009 and June 2014, we treated all patients undergoing surgical treatment for an infected THA using a single-stage acetabular revision as part of a two-stage THA exchange if the acetabular defect classification was Paprosky Types 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, or pelvic discontinuity and a two-stage procedure was preferred for the femur. The procedure included removal of all components, joint débridement, definitive acetabular reconstruction (with a cage to bridge the defect, and a cemented socket), and a temporary cemented femoral component at the first stage; the second stage consisted of repeat joint and femoral débridement and exchange of the femoral component to a cementless device. During the period noted, 35 patients met those definitions and were treated with this approach. No patients were lost to followup before 2 years; mean followup was 42 months (range, 24–84 months). The clinical evaluation was performed with the Harris hip scores and resolution of infection was assessed by the absence of clinical signs of infection and a C-reactive protein level less than 10 mg/L. All patients were assessed before surgery, between stages, every 3 months during the first year after surgery, every 6 months during the second year postoperative, and at latest followup, and were retrospectively drawn from a longitudinally maintained institutional database.

Results

Thirty-four of 35 patients (97.2%; 95% CI, 85.4%-99.5%) appeared free of infection by criteria of Masri et al. and Zimmerli et al. at latest followup. The Harris hip score was 61 ± 13 points after the first operation and 82 ± 16 points 2 years after the second operation.

Conclusions

This technique is a promising treatment option for periprosthetic infections of the hip in which substantial acetabular defects exclude implantation of a normal spacer and a two-stage revision of the femoral component is favored.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Back to top