The reported success rate after treatment with debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) of hip prosthesis infections has been found variable. We evaluated all reoperations performed because of infection and reported to Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR) between 1999 and 2016. The analyses were separated into reoperations performed for the first time and those which had been preceded by at least one previous reoperation performed because of the same reason. The outcome was repeated reoperation performed because of infection.

1,882 were first-time procedures (Group I) and 2,275 had been preceded by at least one reoperation due to infection (Group II). Head and/or liner exchange had been performed in 47% of the cases in group I, and in 22% in Group II. The mean age varied between 70 and 71 years and there was a dominance of males in all groups (52–59%). Compared to all primary THR performed during this period (n=319,813) patients with inflammatory disease, idiopathic femoral head necrosis and sequel after childhood disease were overrepresented for this type of procedure.

Between 1999 and 2016 the number of DAIR procedures increased from 29 to 383 per year corresponding to 21 and 72 % of all reoperations performed due to infection. In first time reoperations the survival was 74.5±3.1% if the head/liner had been exchanged and 46.2±3.2% if only irrigation and synovectomy had been performed. In patients reoperated at least one time previously due to infection the survival rates dropped to 68.6±4.6% and 34.5±2.4%.

Compared to first time reoperation with exchange of femoral and/or liner, synovectomy and irrigation without exchange of any implant part(s) resulted in an almost tripled risk of a second reoperation due to same reason (Hazard Ratio: 2.8, 95% confidence interval: 2.4–3.3). In cases previously reoperated because of infection (Group II) exchange of head/liner and debridement had a 28% increased risk of failure compared to the corresponding first time reoperations (1.28 1.02–1.6). If none of the components were replaced in Group II, the risk ratio for a new failure increased almost 4 times (3.8 3.3–4.4). Presence of a cemented stem increased the risk for further reoperations due to infection (1.14 1.02–1.28), but not presence of a cemented cup (1.06 0.92–1.19). All hazard ratios were adjusted for age, gender, diagnosis and type of fixation.

The comparatively good results observed after exchange of head and liner might indicate that this is necessary to perform a sufficiently radical debridement. This observation could also be biased by a surgeon related factor suggesting that component exchange mainly is performed by surgeons with long experience of revision surgery.

Deep infection after THA is a devastating complication that implies major suffering for the patients and large costs for society. Reports from multiple national and regional registries show increasing incidence of deep infection. Is this a consequence of improved diagnostics, changed virulence of the causative organism, increased co-morbidity of the patients?

An open database will be setup and hosted by an existing, high quality registry. All possible variables including patient demographic, detailed surgical information, bacteria/fungus characteristics, antibiotic treatment, radiographic findings and follow-up for 3 years will be collected. The incoming data will be displayed on a dashboard with continuous analyses and statistics. Any individual surgeon or hospital can report data.

A board with members from the International Hip Society and the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries will supervise the process and facilitate scientific analyses from collected data.

Infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a devastating complication. With an ageing population and increased demands for THA, prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is expected to become an even greater problem in the future. In late PJI a one- or two-stage revision procedure is most often used. Factors determining the outcomes are not fully understood and there is controversy in the choice between the two methods. The, two-stage method in infected THA is regarded as more resource demanding and is associated with a high distress in the patients.

The aim of this study was to compare the risk for second revision (re-revision) between one- and two-stage revision.

During 1979–2015, 1659 first-time revisions performed due to infection were reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Two-stage revision was the most common procedure (n=1255). Risk for a re-revision was compared between one- and two-stage revision using Cox-regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, diagnosis and method of fixation. The primary end-point was a re-revision regardless of cause. Aseptic loosening, infection, and dislocation necessitating re-revision were used as secondary outcomes.

There was no difference in risk of re-revision regardless of cause (HR (one-stage/two-stage)=0.9, 95% C.I.=0.7–1.1, p=0.3), re-revision due to aseptic loosening (HR=1.1, 95% C.I.=0.7–1.6, p=0.7) or re-revision due to infection (HR=0.7, 95% C.I.=0.5–1.1, p=0.2). Dislocation necessitating a re-revision was less common in the one-stage group (HR=0.4, 95% C.I.=0.2–0.9, p=0.03).

In this analysis re-revision rates were similar in the two groups. When analysed specifically for infection, risk of re-revision did not differ between one and two stage revision. Our findings confirm recent systematic reviews on the matter.

This observational study supports increased utilisation of the one-stage approach. However prospective randomized studies are needed to validate these findings.