The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the current evidence for or against this up-and-coming treatment modality. A comprehensive literature search in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted using PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases. Exclusion criteria included patients < 18 years of age, follow-up <11 months, and a score < 6 on the National Institute of Health quality assessment tool.Aim
Method
A septic revision of an artificial joint is routinely split up in a so-called Nine fresh frozen cadaveric hips were used and primary THA was undertaken via a direct anterior approach. Before implantation of the components varying amounts of fluorescent powder (GloGerm) were deposited, simulating bacterial infection. Second, a one-step exchange was performed via a posterolateral approach. After implant removal, debridement, and lavage, randomization determined which clean phase protocol was followed, i.e. no, some or full additional measures. Finally, the new prosthesis was re-implanted (fig. 1). In order to determine the effect of different clean phase protocols on contamination of the sterile field standardized UV light-enhanced photographs were obtained of 1) the gloves, 2) the instrument table, 3) the drapes, and 4) the wound and these were ranked on cleanliness by a blind panel of hip surgeons. In order to determine whether or not it is possible to re-implant the prosthesis completely clean, the implant was taken out again at the end of the one-step exchange and inspected for contamination under UV light.Aim
Method