Next Article in Journal
Immunoproteomic Lessons for Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccine Design
Previous Article in Journal
Early-Life Exposure to the Chinese Famine and Risk of Cognitive Decline
Previous Article in Special Issue
Smoking Dependent Alterations in Bone Formation and Inflammation Represent Major Risk Factors for Complications Following Total Joint Arthroplasty
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8(4), 485; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8040485

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

1,2,3,*, 1,2,3, 1,2,3 and 1,2,3
1
Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 431 80 Mölndal, Sweden
2
Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, 431 80 Mölndal, Sweden
3
The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, 413 45 Gothenburg, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 1 March 2019 / Revised: 29 March 2019 / Accepted: 4 April 2019 / Published: 10 April 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Complications in Total Joint Arthroplasties)
  |  
PDF [1280 KB, uploaded 17 April 2019]
  |     |  

Abstract

Late chronic infection is a devastating complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and is often treated with surgery. The one-stage surgical procedure is believed to be the more advantageous from a patient and cost perspective, but there is no consensus on whether the one- or two-stage procedure is the better option. We analysed the risk for re-revision in infected primary THAs repaired with either the one- or two-stage method. Data was obtained from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register and the study groups were patients who had undergone a one-stage (n = 404) or two-stage (n = 1250) revision due to infection. Risk of re-revision was analysed using Kaplan–Meier analysis with log-rank test and Cox regression analysis. The cumulative survival rate was similar in the two groups at 15 years after surgery (p = 0.1). Adjusting for covariates, the risk for re-revision due to all causes did not differ between patients who were operated on with the one- or two-stage procedure (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.9, 95% Confidence Interval (C.I.) = 0.7–1.2, p = 0.5). The risk for re-revision due to infection (HR = 0.7m, 95% C.I. = 0.4–1.1, p = 0.2) and aseptic loosening (HR = 1.2, 95% C.I. = 0.8–1.8, p = 0.5) was similar. This study could not determine whether the one-stage method was inferior in cases when the performing surgeons chose to use the one-stage method. View Full-Text
Keywords: hip arthroplasty; revision surgery; infection hip arthroplasty; revision surgery; infection
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

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.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
J. Clin. Med. EISSN 2077-0383 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top