ArticleInternational orthopaedics2017
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.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Monitoring the hematologic markers in patients undergoing single-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2025Article
- Conservative femoral revision using short cementless stems with a tapered rectangular shape for selected Paprosky II-IV bone defects: an average seven-year follow-up.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2024Article
- Successful Implant Retention in a Chronified Hematogenous Bilateral Periprosthetic Hip Joint Infection WithArthroplasty today · 2024Article
- 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
- 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
- Hip and Knee Section, Treatment, Surgical Technique: Proceedings of International Consensus on Orthopedic Infections.The Journal of arthroplasty · 2019Article
- CORR Insights®: Does Suture Type Influence Bacterial Retention and Biofilm Formation After Irrigation in a Mouse Model?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2019Article
- The Role of One-Stage Exchange for Prosthetic Joint Infection.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2018Review
- 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
- Two stage revision hip arthroplasty in periprosthetic joint infection. Comparison study: with or without the use of a spacer.International orthopaedics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRemoval of an infected prosthesis was considered the gold standard for eradication of infection. However, removal of well-fixed components can result in structural bone damage and compromised reconstruction. In these situations we questioned whether the infection after the total hip arthroplasty could be treated effectively and retain the well-fixed implant in a single-stage exchange.
methodsA retrospective analysis which included 31 patients with chronic infected THA who underwent major partial single-stage revision, including routinely exchanged femoral head and liner components, aggressive soft tissue debridement, removal of the femoral stem or acetabular cup and retention of the well-fixed component, thorough exposed component brushing, and adequate surgical soaking. Powdered Vancomycin was poured into the surgical area and the infection control rate and clinical outcomes were evaluated. The failure to treat the infection was defined as a recurrence of infection in the same hip. The average follow-up was five years (2-15 years).
resultThere were four (12.9 %) failures during the study period at an average of 15 months (9-21 months) after partial single-stage revision. Of the 31 patients, 27 (87.1 %) patients had a satisfactory outcome and required no additional surgical or medical treatment for recurrence of infection. Acetabular cups were revised in 22 patients and femoral stems in nine patients. The mean post-operative Harris hip score at the most recent assessment was 74.6 (68-82).
conclusionsTreatment of chronic infected THA with retention of the well-fixed implant in a single-stage exchange can be fairly effective in the treatment of infection and achieving acceptable functional outcomes, which indicated that this may be an attractive alternative in highly selected patients. 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.