Abstract
The aim of this study is to compare the results of resection arthroplasty with two-stage re-implantation procedure performed for peri-prosthetic infection of the hip. Patients who have had a resection arthroplasty can expect to have less pain, but their functional recovery is inferior to that which can be obtained after a two-stage re-implantation. Resection arthroplasty is usually unacceptable as a definitive solution for relatively young and active patients.
Possible options for the operative treatment of a periprosthetic infection include debridement with retention of the prosthesis, immediate one-stage exchange arthroplasty, and excision arthroplasty – either as a definitive procedure or as the first of a two-stage reconstructive procedure. The choice of a particular treatment is influenced by a number of factors.
At the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery in Hradec Králové we performed resection arthoplasty of the hip in 67 patients between 1984 and 1998. Mean age was 67 years (range 44–91). We were able to follow-up 33 of these patients in 1999. At follow-up, replacement of the total hip prosthesis in two stages had been carried out in 10 of the 33 patients. In 23 patients (11male, 12 female) the resection arthroplasty had been present for an average of five years. In the remaining ten patients (3 male, 7 female) a total hip reimplantation had been performed after an average of 17 months (range 3 to 63). Mean follow-up after reimplantation was four years. The Harris hip score was calculated for the individual patients during follow-up.
The Harris hip score was 66 in the re-implantation group compared to 57.5 in the patients with resection arthroplasty. Personal satisfaction and hip function were better after the two-stage re-implantation procedure.
The abstracts were prepared by David P. Davlin. Correspondence should be addressed to him at the Orthopedic Clinic Bulovka, Budínova 2, 18081 Prague 8, Czech Republic.
