ArticleInternational orthopaedics2019
Two-stage hip revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection without the use of spacer or cemented implants.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative reinfection rate of one-stage versus two-stage revision in the management of periprosthetic joint infection following total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of the Synovial Fluid α-Defensin Lateral Flow Test in Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Meta-analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Candida periprosthetic infection of the hip: a systematic review of surgical treatments and clinical outcomes.International orthopaedics · 2020Pooled it
- Cure rate of infections is not an argument for spacer in two-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Trial
- Cemented versus uncemented fixation of femoral components in 2-stage hip revision arthroplasty to treat periprosthetic joint infection: a cohort study on 94 patients comparing the risks for relapse and reoperation.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
- Two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection in cemented total hip arthroplasty: an increased risk for failure?Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Review
- Functional Outcome after Reimplantation in Patients Treated with and without an Antibiotic-Loaded Cement Spacers for Hip Prosthetic Joint Infections.Hip & pelvis · 2023Article
- Factors associated with infection recurrence after two-stage exchange for periprosthetic hip infection.International orthopaedics · 2022Article
- [Implementation of a standardized clinical test kit for diagnostics of periprosthetic infections in the clinical routine. German version].Der Unfallchirurg · 2022Article
- Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy with Intermediate Resection Arthroplasty Is Safe for Use in Two-Stage Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Infection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Implementation of a standardized clinical test kit for diagnostics of periprosthetic infections in the clinical routine.Der Unfallchirurg · 2021Article
- Cutibacterium acnes Infection of Hip Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty Resulting in Protrusio Acetabuli: A Case Report and Review of Literature.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2021Article
- Improved diagnostic accuracy with the classification tree method for diagnosing low-grade periprosthetic joint infections by quantitative measurement of synovial fluid alpha-defensin and C-reactive protein.International orthopaedics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is no gold standard for performing a two-stage exchange arthroplasty to treat periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The use of spacers and the anchorage principles of the revision prosthesis remain controversial. Herein, we report the success rate of a two-stage total hip replacement procedure without using a spacer and only pressfit cementless implants.
methodsBetween 2009 and 2015, 57 patients with chronic late-onset PJI were treated using a two-stage prostheses exchange without spacer. The average age was 66.7 years (47-83 years). The mean follow-up was 53.9 ± 25 months. Treatment included microbiologic diagnostics and a high-efficiency antimicrobial therapy in between the operations for six weeks and a two week antibiotic-free interval before reimplantation of the cementless prostheses. After implantation, antibiotics were stopped. This study was approved by the institutional review board.
resultsNinety-six percent of the patients had prior unsuccessful PJI treatment in other hospitals. The most common microorganism was Staphylococcus epidermidis (50.9%), followed by Propionibacterium acnes (17.5%) and Staphylococcus aureus (14%). In 42.1% cases, mixed infections were found. All patients could be treated using a cementless implant. In 91.2%, PJI remission was achieved, while 8.6% had chronic PJI with implant retention. Overall, nine prostheses (15.8%) were replaced owing to ongoing PJI or fractures. Mean modified Harris Hip Score was 60.85 (range: 22-88). None of the patients died.
conclusionWe demonstrated a high success rate for two-stage exchange of infected total hip arthroplasty. Spacer-free treatment does not negatively affect success rate or function. Implantation of an uncemented pressfit prosthesis was possible in all patients.
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.