Septic Two-Stage Cementless Hip Revision Arthroplasty Is Safe but Has Higher Complication and Mortality Rates in Older Adults
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Nelson, S.B.; A Pinkney, J.; Chen, A.F.; Tande, A.J. Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Current Clinical Challenges. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2023, 77, e34–e45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fink, B. Revision of late periprosthetic infections of total hip endoprostheses: Pros and cons of different concepts. Int. J. Med. Sci. 2009, 6, 287–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goud, A.L.; Harlianto, N.I.; Ezzafzafi, S.; Veltman, E.S.; Bekkers, J.E.J.; van der Wal, B.C.H. Reinfection rates after one-and two-stage revision surgery for hip and knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch. Orthop. Trauma. Surg. 2023, 143, 829–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Svensson, K.; Rolfson, O.; Kärrholm, J.; Mohaddes, M. Similar risk of re-revision in patients after one-or two-stage surgical revision of infected total hip arthroplasty: An analysis of revisions in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register 1979–2015. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dohmae, Y.; Bechthold, J.E.; Sherman, R.E.; Puno, R.M.; Gustilo, R.B. Reduction in cement-bone interface shear strength between primary and revision arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. Rel. Res. 1988, 36, 214–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fink, B.; Grossmann, A.; Fuerst, M.; Schäfer, P.; Frommelt, L. Two-stage cementless revision of infected hip endoprostheses. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2009, 467, 1848–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camurcu, Y.; Sofu, H.; Buyuk, A.F.; Gursu, S.; Kaygusuz, M.A.; Sahin, V. Two-stage cementless revision total hip arthroplasty for infected primary hip arthroplasties. J. Arthroplast. 2015, 30, 1597–1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mäkelä, K.T.; Matilainen, M.; Pulkkinen, P.; Fenstad, A.M.; Havelin, L.; Engesaeter, L.; Furnes, O.; Pedersen, A.B.; Overgaard, S.; Kärrholm, J.; et al. Failure rate of cemented and uncemented total hip replacements: Register study of combined Nordic database of four nations. BMJ 2014, 348, f7592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jämsen, E.; Eskelinen, A.; Peltola, M.; Mäkelä, K. High early failure rate after cementless hip replacement in the octogenarian. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2014, 472, 2779–2789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brüggemann, H.; Dalen, I.; Bache-Mathiesen, L.K.; Fenstad, A.M.; Hallan, G.; Fosse, L. Incidence and risk factors of intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures during primary total hip arthroplasty: 218,423 cases reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register between 1987 and 2020. Acta Orthop. 2022, 93, 405–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hooper, G.J.; Rothwell, A.G.; Stringer, M.; Frampton, C. Revision following cemented and uncemented primary total hip replacement: A seven-year analysis from the New Zealnd Joint Registry. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 2009, 91-B, 451–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thiesen, D.M.; Sobhani, H.; Gehrke, T.; Suero, E.M.; Klatte, T.O.; Citak, M. A comparison of short term complication rate between 44 two- and 385 one-stage septic exchange arthroplasties in chronic perprosthetic joint infection. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2021, 107, 102668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montalti, M.; Bordini, B.; Natali, S.; Consentino, M.; Castagnini, F.; Traina, F. Revision for periprosthetic hip infections do not fail more than revisions for aseptic loosening, but mortality is higher. J. Arthroplast. 2021, 36, 1074–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Campbell, D.G.; Davis, J.S.; de Steiger, R.N.; Lorimer, M.F.; Harries, D.; Biostat, M.; Harris, I.A.; Manning, L.; Lewis, P.L. Long-term mortality associated with periprosthetic infection in total hip arthroplasty. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2025, 107, 1620–1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Parvizi, J.; Tan, T.L.; Goswami, K.; Higuera, C.; Della Valle, C.; Chen, A.F.; Shohat, N. The 2018 Definition of Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infection: An Evidence-Based and Validated Criteria. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 1309–1314.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faschingbauer, M.; Bieger, R.; Kappe, T.; Weiner, C.; Freitag, T.; Reichel, H. Difficult to treat: Are there organism-dependent differences and overall risk factors in success rates for two-stage knee revision? Arch. Orthop. Trauma. Surg. 2020, 140, 1595–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fink, B.; Grossmann, A.; Schubring, S.; Schulz, M.S.; Fuerst, M. A modified transfemoral approach using modular cementless revision stems. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2007, 462, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fink, B.; Grossmann, A. Modified transfemoral approach to revision arthroplasty with uncemented modular revision stems. Oper. Orthop. Traumatol. 2007, 19, 32–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Della Valle, C.J.; Paprosky, W.G. The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. Clin. Orthop. Rel. Res. 2004, 420, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paprosky, W.G.; Martin, E.L. Classifications in Brief. The Paprosky Classification of Femoral Bone Loss. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2016, 474, 738–741. [Google Scholar]
- Paprosky, W.G.; Greidanus, N.V.; Antoniou, J. Minimum 10-year results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1999, 369, 230–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Box, G.E.P.; Tidwell, P.W. Transformation of the Independent Variables. Technometrics 1962, V4, 531–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagelkerke, N.J. A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 1991, 78, 691–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Natshuhara, K.M.; Shelton, T.J.; Meehan, J.P.; Lum, Z.C. Mortalitiy during total hip perprosthetic joint infection. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, S337–S342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gundtoft, P.H.; Pederson, A.B.; Vamum, C.; Overgaard, S. Increased mortality after prosthetic joint infection in primary THA. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2017, 475, 2623–2631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurtz, S.M.; Lau, E.C.; Son, M.S.; Chang, E.T.; Zimmerli, W.; Parvizi, J. Are we winning or losing the battle with periprosthetic joint infection: Trends in periprosthetic joint infetion and mortality risk for the medicare population. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 22, 3238–3245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lung, B.E.; Liu, S.H.; Burgan, J.; Loyst, R.A.; Tedesco, A.; Nicholson, J.J.; McMaster, W.C.; Yang, S.; Stitzlein, R. Revision total hip arthroplasty: Evaluating the utility of the geriatric nutritional risk index as a risk stratification tool. Arthroplast. Today 2024, 28, 101430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]


| Group 1 Younger 75 | Group 2 Older 75 | Total Sample | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N | N | N | |
| (%) | (%) | (%) | |
| 63.46 ± 9.19 | 80.44 ± 3.51 | 70.47 ± 11.17 | Age * (χ2, p < 0.001) |
| 65 vs. 103 | 60 vs. 58 | 125 vs. 161 | Gender female vs. male * (χ2, p = 0.041) |
| (38.7% vs. 61.3%) | (50.8% vs. 49.2%) | (43.7% vs. 56.3%) | |
| 33 | 33 | 66 | Diabetes (χ2, p = 0.067) |
| (19.6%) | (28.0%) | (23.1%) | |
| 8 | 5 | 13 | Rheum. Dis. (χ2, p = 0.537) |
| (4.8%) | (4.2%) | (4.5%) | |
| 31.11 ± 7.08 | 27.84 ± 5.96 | 29.76 ± 6.83 | BMI * (χ2, p < 0.001) |
| Median score: 2.0 | Median score: 2.0 | Median score: 2.0 | Paprosky * (χ2, p = 0.005) |
| 5 | 2 | 7 | I |
| (71.4%) | (28.6%) | (2.4%) | |
| 52 | 16 | 68 | II |
| (76.5%) | (23.5%) | (23.8%) | |
| 98 | 84 | 182 | IIIa |
| (53.8%) | (46.2%) | (63.6%) | |
| 8 | 13 | 21 | IIIb |
| (38.1%) | (61.9%) | (7.3%) | |
| 2 | 1 | 3 | IV |
| (66.7%) | (33.3%) | (1.0%) | |
| Median score: 2.0 | Median score: 3.0 | Median score: 2.5 | ASA * (χ2, p < 0.001) |
| 2 | 0 | 2 | ASA1 |
| (1.2%) | (0.0%) | (0.7%) | |
| 104 | 37 | 141 | ASA2 |
| (61.9%) | (31.4%) | (49.3%) | |
| 56 | 75 | 131 | ASA3 |
| (33.3%) | (63.6%) | (45.8%) | |
| 6 | 6 | 12 | ASA4 |
| (3.6%) | (5.1%) | (4.2%) | |
| Median score: 4.0 | Median score: 7.0 | Median score: 5.0 | CCI * (χ2, p < 0.001) |
| 7 | 0 | 7 | CCI0 |
| (4.2%) | (0.0%) | (2.4%) | |
| 5 | 0 | 5 | CCI1 |
| (3.0%) | (0.0%) | (1.7%) | |
| 17 | 1 | 18 | CCI2 |
| (10.1%) | (0.8%) | (6.3%) | |
| 35 | 1 | 36 | CCI3 |
| (20.8%) | (0.8%) | (12.6%) | |
| 34 | 8 | 42 | CCI4 |
| (20.2%) | (6.8%) | (14.7%) | |
| 28 | 12 | 40 | CCI5 |
| (16.7%) | (10.2%) | (14.0%) | |
| 18 | 30 | 48 | CCI6 |
| (10.7%) | (25.4%) | (16.8%) | |
| 12 | 28 | 40 | CCI7 |
| (7.1%) | (23.7%) | (14.0%) | |
| 7 | 17 | 24 | CCI8 |
| (4.2%) | (14.4%) | (8.4%) | |
| 3 | 10 | 13 | CCI9 |
| (1.8%) | (8.5%) | (4.5%) | |
| 2 | 8 | 10 | CCI10 |
| (1.2%) | (6.8%) | (3.5%) | |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | CCI11 |
| (0.0%) | (0.8%) | (0.4%) | |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | CCI 13 |
| (0.0%) | (0.8%) | (0.4%) | |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | CCI 15 |
| (0.0%) | (0.8%) | (0.4%) |
| Group 1 (<75) | Group 2 (>75) | Total Study Sample | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | |
| 5 | 10 | 15 | cemented fixation |
| (3.0%) | (8.5%) | (5.2%) | |
| 55 | 9 | 64 | endofemoral cementless fixation |
| (32.7%) | (7.6%) | (22.4%) | |
| 96 | 86 | 182 | transfemoral cementless fixation |
| (57.1%) | (72.9%) | (63.6%) | |
| 10 | 12 | 22 | transfemoral cementless fixation + distal locking |
| (6.0%) | (10.2%) | (7.7%) | |
| 1 | 1 | 2 | prox. femoral replacement |
| (0.6%) | (0.8%) | (0.7%) | |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | girdlestone |
| (0.6%) | (0.0%) | (0.4%) | |
| 168 | 118 | 286 | Total |
| (100%) | (100%) | (100%) |
| Group 1 (<75) | Group 2 (>75) | Total Study Sample | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | |
| 109 | 76 | 176 | Easy to treat |
| (64.9%) | (56.8%) | (61.5%) | |
| 10 | 11 | 21 | Difficult to treat |
| (6.0%) | (9.3%) | (7.3%) | |
| 37 | 21 | 58 | MRS |
| (22.0%) | (17.8%) | (20.3%) | |
| 12 | 19 | 22 | Culture negative |
| (7.1%) | (16.1%) | (7.7%) | |
| 168 | 118 | 286 | Total |
| (100%) | (100%) | (100%) |
| Group 1 Younger 75 | Group 2 Older 75 | Total Study Sample | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N | N | N | |
| (%) | (%) | (%) | |
| 1 | 7 | 8 | mortality * (χ2, p < 0.001) |
| (0.6%) | (5.9%) | (2.8%) | |
| 9 | 5 | 14 | reinfection |
| (5.4%) | (4.2%) | (4.9%) | |
| 16 | 10 | 26 | fracture bony flap perioperatively |
| (9.5%) | (8.5%) | (9.1%) | |
| 6 | 2 | 8 | fissure perioperatively |
| (3.6%) | (1.7%) | (2.8%) | |
| 3 | 0 | 3 | subsidence |
| (1.8%) | (0.0%) | (1.0%) |
| Group 1 (<75) | Group 2 (>75) | Total Study Sample | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | |
| 9 | 4 | 13 | Dislocation |
| (5.4%) | (3.4%) | (4.5%) | |
| 0 | 3 | 3 | Ischemic complications |
| (0.0%) | (2.5%) | (19.0%) | |
| 3 | 6 | 9 | Thromboembolic complications |
| (1.8%) | (5.1%) | (3.1%) | |
| 2 | 5 | 7 | Nephrological complications |
| (1.2%) | (4.2%) | (2.4/%) | |
| 1 | 1 | 2 | Pulmonal complications |
| (0.6%) | (0.8%) | (0.7%) | |
| 1 | 7 | 8 | Cardial complications |
| (0.6%) | (5.9%) | (2.8%) | |
| 2 | 0 | 2 | Hemorrhagic complications |
| (1.2%) | (0.0%) | (0.7%) | |
| 4 | 3 | 7 | Soft tissue complications |
| (2.4%) | (2.5%) | (2.4%) | |
| 1 | 6 | 1 | Postoperative delir |
| (0.6%) | (5.1%) | (0.3%) | |
| 0 | 5 | 1 | Combined complications 1–9 |
| (0.0%) | (4.2%) | (0.3%) | |
| 145 | 78 | 223 | No complications * (χ2, p < 0.001) |
| (86.3%) | (66.1%) | (78.0%) | |
| 168 | 118 | 284 | Total |
| (100%) | (100%) | (100%) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sax, F.H.; Hoyka, M.; Blersch, B.P.; Grünwald, L.; Fink, B. Septic Two-Stage Cementless Hip Revision Arthroplasty Is Safe but Has Higher Complication and Mortality Rates in Older Adults. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 6556. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14186556
Sax FH, Hoyka M, Blersch BP, Grünwald L, Fink B. Septic Two-Stage Cementless Hip Revision Arthroplasty Is Safe but Has Higher Complication and Mortality Rates in Older Adults. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025; 14(18):6556. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14186556
Chicago/Turabian StyleSax, Florian Hubert, Marius Hoyka, Benedikt Paul Blersch, Leonard Grünwald, and Bernd Fink. 2025. "Septic Two-Stage Cementless Hip Revision Arthroplasty Is Safe but Has Higher Complication and Mortality Rates in Older Adults" Journal of Clinical Medicine 14, no. 18: 6556. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14186556
APA StyleSax, F. H., Hoyka, M., Blersch, B. P., Grünwald, L., & Fink, B. (2025). Septic Two-Stage Cementless Hip Revision Arthroplasty Is Safe but Has Higher Complication and Mortality Rates in Older Adults. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 14(18), 6556. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14186556

