Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is traditionally used to treat periprosthetic hip infection. Nevertheless, particularly in high-risk patients, there has been increased attention towards alternatives such as 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty which takes place in one surgery. Therefore, we sought to compare (1) operative time, length-of-stay (LOS), transfusions, (2) causative organism identification and polymicrobial infection rates, (3) re-revision rates and re-revision reasons, (4) mortality, and determine (5) independent predictors of re-revision.

Retrospective chart review of 71 patients who underwent either 1.5- (n=38) or 2-stage (n=33) exchange hip arthroplasty at a single institution (03/2019-05/2023). Demographics, surgical, inpatient, and infection characteristics were noted. Main outcomes evaluated were re-revision rates, re-revision reasons, mortality, and cause of death. Independent predictors of re-revision were assessed utilizing logistic regression. Mean follow: 675 days (range, 23–1,715).

Demographics were not significantly different except for a higher proportion of 1.5-stage patients classified as American-Society-of-Anesthesiologists (ASA) status 3 or 4 (84.2 vs. 48.5%, p=0.002). Length of follow-up was significantly longer in the 2-stage group (924.4 vs. 458 days, p<0.001) as well as operative time (506 vs. 271 minutes, p<0.001). In the 1.5-stage group, there was a higher proportion of polymicrobial infections (23.7 vs. 3.0%, p=0.016), re-revision rates (28.9 vs. 9.1%, p=0.042) and periprosthetic infections as a cause of revision (90.9 vs. 0%, p=0.007). Mortality rates were not significantly different, and no patient died for causes related to infection. Type of surgery (1.5-stage vs. 2-stage) was the only independent predictor of re-revision (odds-ratio 4.0, 95% confidence-interval 1.02–16.16, p=0.046).

Our data suggests that patients who undergo 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty have a significantly higher re-revision rate (mostly due to infection) when compared to 2-stage patients. We acknowledge potential benefits of the 1.5-stage strategy, especially in high-risk patients since it involves single surgery. However, higher re-revision rates must be considered when counseling patients.

Introduction

A staging system has been developed to revise the 1994 ARCO classification for ONFH. The final consensus resulted in the following 4-staged system: stage I—X-ray is normal, but either magnetic resonance imaging or bone scan is positive; stage II—X-ray is abnormal (subtle signs of osteosclerosis, focal osteoporosis, or cystic change in the femoral head) but without any evidence of subchondral fracture, fracture in the necrotic portion, or flattening of the femoral head; stage III—fracture in the subchondral or necrotic zone as seen on X-ray or computed tomography scans. This stage is further divided into stage IIIA (early, femoral head depression ≤2 mm) and stage IIIB (late, femoral head depression >2 mm); and stage IV—X-ray evidence of osteoarthritis with accompanying joint space narrowing, acetabular changes, and/or joint destruction. Radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) scans may all be involved in diagnosing ONFH; however, the optimal diagnostic modality remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to identify: 1) how ONFH is diagnosed at a single academic medical center, and 2) if CT is a necessary modality for diagnosing/staging OFNH.