Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 1 of 1
Results per page:
Applied filters
Content I can access

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 95-B, Issue SUPP_15 | Pages 288 - 288
1 Mar 2013
Oe K Okamoto N Asada T Nakamura T Wada T Iida H
Full Access

Introduction

It is still controversial whether one or two-stage revision should be indicated for deeply infected hip prosthesis, and there are no scoring systems for the decision of them. An assessment system for the treatment of deeply infected hip prosthesis was evaluated for the patients who had undergone one or two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Materials and Methods

Between February 2001 and November 2009, revision THA for deep infection was carried out in 60 hips on 59 patients by the senior authors. Nineteen hips underwent one-stage revision THA using antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement (ALAC), and 41 hips did two-stage revision THA using ALAC beads, based on the criteria by Jackson and Schmalzried. This study included 47 revisions in 47 patients for which a minimum follow-up of two years (average 4.7 years). Six parameters were employed in the assessment system: 1) general condition, 2) duration of infection, 3) wound complication after initial operation, 4) microorganism, 5) C-reactive protein (CRP), and 6) necessity for grafting bone. Each parameter ranged from 0 to 2 points, giving a full score of 12 points. Healing was defined as the lack of clinical signs and symptoms of infection, a CRP level < 10 mg/l or an erythrocyte sedimentation rate < 20 mm/h, and the absence or radiological signs of infection at the follow-up visit > 24 months after first revision, described by Giulieri et al.