Abstract
The practice at most centers in North America for the investigation and management of non-acute infection after hip replacement has been relatively standard for some time. Diagnosis has depended on a thorough history, physical examination, plain radiographs, straightforward laboratory inflammatory markers, joint aspiration for bacteriologic study, intraoperative frozen section in selected cases, and intraoperative synovial biopsies for confirmatory bacteriologic evaluation. The cornerstone of treatment on this continent has revolved around two-stage revision hip replacement, with increasing popularity for the use of interval articulating antibiotic loaded spacers, and increasing use of cementless fixation at the second stage. But this standard approach has been under increasing scrutiny in recent years, for good reason.
The use of more precise “best evidence” paradigms on which to base the diagnosis have been developed. There is encouraging work on the application of more specific synovial and serum markers. The need to remove all implant material in all cases has been challenged. And there is evidence that the two stage approach is associated with greater morbidity, mortality and cost. The latter has led to a re-examination of the role and results of single-stage exchange revision, at least in selected cases, where the patient is immune competent, the soft tissue and bone anatomy is not badly deficient, the organism is known, and the antibiotic sensitivity is favorable.
The most encouraging of the recent developments is the increasing consensus that multicenter collaborative study is required if we are to make genuine progress in the one-stage/two-stage debate. At least one multicenter prospective randomised study is scheduled to commence in 2015.
