ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2016
The Role of Highly Selective Implant Retention in the Infected Hip Arthroplasty.
Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Success Rate of Partial Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Late Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infections in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis.Hip & pelvis · 2026Article
- Partial versus full revision in cementless single-stage exchange for hip periprosthetic joint infection: a multicenter comparative study with 10-year survivorship analysis.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2026Article
- Two-stage Partial Component Retention and Interim Cemented Liner for Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Case Report.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2023Article
- Partial Two-Stage Exchange for Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Treatment to Take into Account.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- A Decision Support Framework for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Treatment: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Two Modeling Approaches.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Classification and management options for prosthetic joint infection.Annals of joint · 2022Review
- Adherence to a reliable PJI diagnostic protocol minimizes unsuspected positive cultures rate.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- Partial Single Stage Exchange Arthroplasty With Retention of a Well Fixed Cemented Femoral Stem for the Treatment of Culture Negative Infection in a Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty: A Case Report.Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 2021Article
- Twenty common errors in the diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic joint infection.International orthopaedics · 2020Review
- Treatment of periprosthetic hip infection with retention of a well-fixed stem: six to 13-year outcomes.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2019Article
- A new perspective on current prosthetic joint infection classifications: introducing topography as a key factor affecting treatment strategy.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2019Article
- Hip and Knee Section, Treatment, Surgical Technique: Proceedings of International Consensus on Orthopedic Infections.The Journal of arthroplasty · 2019Article
- Partial component-retained two-stage reconstruction for chronic infection after uncemented total hip arthroplasty: results of sixteen cases after five years of follow-up.International orthopaedics · 2017Article
- CORR InsightsClinical orthopaedics and related research · 2017Article
- Retention of the well-fixed implant in the single-stage exchange for chronic infected total hip arthroplasty: an average of five years of follow-up.International orthopaedics · 2017Article
- [Partial exchange in total hip arthroplasty : What can we combine?]Der Orthopade · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is debate around how to treat patients with periprosthetic joint infection of the hip. When there is an ingrown component on one side of the arthroplasty and a loose component on the other, treatment is typically revision of the entire construct. There is an argument to retain an ingrown implant in instances in which removal would result in severe bone damage. However, little has been reported on the likelihood of success with this approach. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Among carefully selected patients presenting with an infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) who were treated with joint débridement and at least partial implant retention: (1) What proportion remained apparently free of infection at a minimum of 5 years of followup? (2) What were the Harris hip scores of patients thus treated?
methodsBetween January 2000 and December 2010, a total of 293 patients were treated surgically at one hospital for a periprosthetic joint infection of the hip. Of these, 18 (2.9%) were treated with an approach that retained either the femoral component or the acetabular component (the removed component was exchanged at this same single-stage procedure). During that time, the general indications for this approach were patients who had complex THAs with ingrown femoral stems or complex acetabular components that were well fixed with no evidence of loosening on radiographs and CT. Patients had to be free from chronic debilitating diseases, had not developed a tracking sinus, and had a positive microbial growth from the hip aspirate. In 12 of these patients, the ingrown cementless femoral component was kept in situ and the femoral head and acetabular component were exchanged. In six patients, complex acetabular reconstructions including augments and/or cages were left in situ, and femoral revision with liner exchange was performed. The technique included removal of the loose component, thorough débridement, synovectomy, and extensive lavage. The ingrown component, be it femoral or acetabular, was thoroughly cleaned, lavaged, and scrubbed. Once there was a clear field, redraping was carried out and new instruments were used to reimplant the other side. In all patients, intravenous antibiotics were used postoperatively for a minimum of 5 days and oral antibiotics for a minimum of 6 weeks based on serology, wound healing, and nutritional markers. None of the patients were lost to followup. Minimum followup was 5 years; median followup was 7.1 years (range, 5-9.9 years).
resultsReinfection occurred in three patients at 3, 9, and 10 months; all were treated by two-stage revision. No reinfection was noted in the other cases. At latest followup, the mean Harris hip score was 78 (range, 46-89).
conclusionsIn some patients, staged revision of large and well-fixed components will result in bone damage and compromised function. These results suggest that partial implant retention and joint débridement may be an alternative for those patients who have complex well-fixed acetabular or femoral components, are not immunocompromised, have not developed sinus formation, and we were able to obtain a positive hip aspirate. We caution this technique should not be applied when patients have chronic illness such as diabetes or rheumatoid disease, have a negative hip aspirate for microorganisms, or show any signs of loosening on radiography, CT, or on intraoperative assessment. These results at a minimum of 5 years are reassuring in this small single-center series, but we suggest that the technique not be widely adopted until or unless larger groups of patients with longer term data have been studied. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.