Cargando…

Retaining well-fixed cementless stem in the treatment of infected hip arthroplasty: Good results in 19 patients followed for mean 4 years

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Two-stage reconstruction, reimplantation after removal of an infected prosthesis, has been considered to be the gold standard for treatment of infected hip arthroplasty. However, during the removal of a well-fixed femoral stem, the proximal femur can be damaged and a sequestr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Young-Kyun, Lee, Kee Haeng, Nho, Jae-Hwi, Ha, Yong-Chan, Koo, Kyung-Hoi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Informa Healthcare 2013
Materias:
Hip
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3715827/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23621807
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2013.795830
_version_ 1782277510157828096
author Lee, Young-Kyun
Lee, Kee Haeng
Nho, Jae-Hwi
Ha, Yong-Chan
Koo, Kyung-Hoi
author_facet Lee, Young-Kyun
Lee, Kee Haeng
Nho, Jae-Hwi
Ha, Yong-Chan
Koo, Kyung-Hoi
author_sort Lee, Young-Kyun
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Two-stage reconstruction, reimplantation after removal of an infected prosthesis, has been considered to be the gold standard for treatment of infected hip arthroplasty. However, during the removal of a well-fixed femoral stem, the proximal femur can be damaged and a sequestrum can be formed, which might lead to chronic osteomyelitis and difficulty in reimplantation. We wanted to determine whether infection after hip arthroplasty can be treated without removal of a well-fixed stem. METHODS: We treated 19 patients who had an infection after hip replacement, but a well-fixed cementless stem, with 2-stage reconstruction. At the first stage, we removed the acetabular cup, the liner and the head, but not the stem. We then implanted a cup of cement spacer. After control of infection, we reimplanted the acetabular component and head. RESULTS: 2 patients did not undergo second-stage reconstruction because they were satisfied with the pain relief and the activity that they had with the cement-spacer implantation. The remaining 17 patients underwent the second-stage of the reconstruction using cementless arthroplasty. At a mean follow-up time of 4 (2–8) years, 15 of the patients had no recurrence of infection, with satisfactory clinical and radiographic outcome. INTERPRETATION: This second-stage reconstruction after retention of the stem could be an alternative treatment option for periprosthetic infection with a well-fixed stem.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3715827
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Informa Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37158272013-07-19 Retaining well-fixed cementless stem in the treatment of infected hip arthroplasty: Good results in 19 patients followed for mean 4 years Lee, Young-Kyun Lee, Kee Haeng Nho, Jae-Hwi Ha, Yong-Chan Koo, Kyung-Hoi Acta Orthop Hip BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Two-stage reconstruction, reimplantation after removal of an infected prosthesis, has been considered to be the gold standard for treatment of infected hip arthroplasty. However, during the removal of a well-fixed femoral stem, the proximal femur can be damaged and a sequestrum can be formed, which might lead to chronic osteomyelitis and difficulty in reimplantation. We wanted to determine whether infection after hip arthroplasty can be treated without removal of a well-fixed stem. METHODS: We treated 19 patients who had an infection after hip replacement, but a well-fixed cementless stem, with 2-stage reconstruction. At the first stage, we removed the acetabular cup, the liner and the head, but not the stem. We then implanted a cup of cement spacer. After control of infection, we reimplanted the acetabular component and head. RESULTS: 2 patients did not undergo second-stage reconstruction because they were satisfied with the pain relief and the activity that they had with the cement-spacer implantation. The remaining 17 patients underwent the second-stage of the reconstruction using cementless arthroplasty. At a mean follow-up time of 4 (2–8) years, 15 of the patients had no recurrence of infection, with satisfactory clinical and radiographic outcome. INTERPRETATION: This second-stage reconstruction after retention of the stem could be an alternative treatment option for periprosthetic infection with a well-fixed stem. Informa Healthcare 2013-06 2013-05-31 /pmc/articles/PMC3715827/ /pubmed/23621807 http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2013.795830 Text en Copyright: © Nordic Orthopaedic Federation http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the source is credited.
spellingShingle Hip
Lee, Young-Kyun
Lee, Kee Haeng
Nho, Jae-Hwi
Ha, Yong-Chan
Koo, Kyung-Hoi
Retaining well-fixed cementless stem in the treatment of infected hip arthroplasty: Good results in 19 patients followed for mean 4 years
title Retaining well-fixed cementless stem in the treatment of infected hip arthroplasty: Good results in 19 patients followed for mean 4 years
title_full Retaining well-fixed cementless stem in the treatment of infected hip arthroplasty: Good results in 19 patients followed for mean 4 years
title_fullStr Retaining well-fixed cementless stem in the treatment of infected hip arthroplasty: Good results in 19 patients followed for mean 4 years
title_full_unstemmed Retaining well-fixed cementless stem in the treatment of infected hip arthroplasty: Good results in 19 patients followed for mean 4 years
title_short Retaining well-fixed cementless stem in the treatment of infected hip arthroplasty: Good results in 19 patients followed for mean 4 years
title_sort retaining well-fixed cementless stem in the treatment of infected hip arthroplasty: good results in 19 patients followed for mean 4 years
topic Hip
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3715827/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23621807
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2013.795830
work_keys_str_mv AT leeyoungkyun retainingwellfixedcementlesssteminthetreatmentofinfectedhiparthroplastygoodresultsin19patientsfollowedformean4years
AT leekeehaeng retainingwellfixedcementlesssteminthetreatmentofinfectedhiparthroplastygoodresultsin19patientsfollowedformean4years
AT nhojaehwi retainingwellfixedcementlesssteminthetreatmentofinfectedhiparthroplastygoodresultsin19patientsfollowedformean4years
AT hayongchan retainingwellfixedcementlesssteminthetreatmentofinfectedhiparthroplastygoodresultsin19patientsfollowedformean4years
AT kookyunghoi retainingwellfixedcementlesssteminthetreatmentofinfectedhiparthroplastygoodresultsin19patientsfollowedformean4years