Abstract
Infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a devastating complication. With an ageing population and increased demands for THA, prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is expected to become an even greater problem in the future. In late PJI a one- or two-stage revision procedure is most often used. Factors determining the outcomes are not fully understood and there is controversy in the choice between the two methods. The, two-stage method in infected THA is regarded as more resource demanding and is associated with a high distress in the patients.
The aim of this study was to compare the risk for second revision (re-revision) between one- and two-stage revision.
During 1979–2015, 1659 first-time revisions performed due to infection were reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Two-stage revision was the most common procedure (n=1255). Risk for a re-revision was compared between one- and two-stage revision using Cox-regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, diagnosis and method of fixation. The primary end-point was a re-revision regardless of cause. Aseptic loosening, infection, and dislocation necessitating re-revision were used as secondary outcomes.
There was no difference in risk of re-revision regardless of cause (HR (one-stage/two-stage)=0.9, 95% C.I.=0.7–1.1, p=0.3), re-revision due to aseptic loosening (HR=1.1, 95% C.I.=0.7–1.6, p=0.7) or re-revision due to infection (HR=0.7, 95% C.I.=0.5–1.1, p=0.2). Dislocation necessitating a re-revision was less common in the one-stage group (HR=0.4, 95% C.I.=0.2–0.9, p=0.03).
In this analysis re-revision rates were similar in the two groups. When analysed specifically for infection, risk of re-revision did not differ between one and two stage revision. Our findings confirm recent systematic reviews on the matter.
This observational study supports increased utilisation of the one-stage approach. However prospective randomized studies are needed to validate these findings.
