Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Int Orthop. 2012 Apr;36(4):723-9. doi: 10.1007/s00264-011-1324-5. Epub 2011 Jul 27.

Retention treatment after periprosthetic total hip arthroplasty infection.

Author information

1
Harris Orthopedic Laboratory, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, GRJ-1126, Boston, MA 02114, USA.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this study was to compare infection control rates between implant retention and two-stage revision and assess the effectiveness of retention treatment in THA.

METHODS:

Twenty-eight debridements with implant retention (retention group) and 65 staged revisions (removal group) were retrospectively analysed and risk factors that can contribute to failure of infection control were explored.

RESULTS:

For the retention and removal groups, infection control rates were 50% and 78% after initial treatment, and 68% and 82% at latest follow-up, respectively. There were no significant differences in the number of additional operative procedures, total length of hospital stay, and duration of treatment between groups. Infection of revision THA, polybacterial and S. aureus infection were identified as risk factors for infection control.

CONCLUSIONS:

Retention treatment can be considered an initial treatment option in selected cases of primary THA, with a single organism, non-S. aureus infection with 50% chance of infection control and no disadvantages in terms of additional procedure, hospital stay, and treatment duration.

PMID:
21792609
PMCID:
PMC3311804
DOI:
10.1007/s00264-011-1324-5
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Springer Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center