For this retrospective cohort study, patients aged ≤ 30 years
(very young) who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) were compared
with patients aged ≥ 60 years (elderly) to evaluate the rate of
revision arthroplasty, implant survival, the indications for revision,
the complications, and the patient-reported outcomes. We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent primary
THA between January 2000 and May 2015 from our institutional database.
A total of 145 very young and 1359 elderly patients were reviewed.
The mean follow-up was 5.3 years (1 to 18). Logistic generalized
estimating equations were used to compare characteristics and the revision
rate. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan–Meier curves and hazard
rates were created using Cox regression.Aims
Patients and Methods
Two-stage exchange remains the gold standard
for treatment of peri-prosthetic joint infection after total hip replacement
(THR). In the first stage, all components and associated cement
if present are removed, an aggressive debridement is undertaken
including a complete synovectomy, and an antibiotic-loaded cement
spacer is put in place. Patients are then treated with six weeks
of parenteral antibiotics, followed by an ‘antibiotic free period’
to help ensure the infection has been eradicated. If the clinical
evaluation and serum inflammatory markers suggest the infection
has resolved, then the second stage can be completed, which involves
removal of the cement spacer, repeat debridement, and placement
of a new THR. Cite this article:
Arthroscopy of the native hip is an established diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. Its application in the symptomatic replaced hip is still being explored. We describe the use of arthroscopy of the hip in 24 symptomatic patients following total hip replacement, resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip and partial resurfacing (study group), and compared it with arthroscopy of the native hip in 24 patients (control group). A diagnosis was made or confirmed at arthroscopy in 23 of the study group and a therapeutic arthroscopic intervention resulted in relief of symptoms in ten of these. In a further seven patients it led to revision hip replacement. In contrast, arthroscopy in the control group was diagnostic in all 24 patients and the resulting arthroscopic therapeutic intervention provided symptomatic relief in 21. The mean operative time in the study group (59.7 minutes (35 to 93)) was less than in the control group (71 minutes (40 to 100), p = 0.04) but the arthroscopic approach was more difficult in the arthroplasty group. We suggest that arthroscopy has a role in the management of patients with a symptomatic arthroplasty when other investigations have failed to provide a diagnosis.
