N 6 (197) 2025. P. 65–69

TACTICS OF TWO-STAGE TREATMENT OF PERIPROSTHETIC INFECTION OF THE HIP JOINT

P. V. Tanasiienko, R. A. Kozak

National Pirogov Memorial Medical University, Vinnytsia, Ukraine
State Institution “Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine”, Kyiv, Ukraine

DOI 10.32782/2226-2008-2025-6-10

The purpose of our study was to determine the priority tactics of surgical treatment of periprosthetic infection of the hip joint.

Materials and methods. To carry out our study, we conducted a retrospective analysis of 114 cases of periprosthetic infection of the hip joint, which were treated in the hospital at the Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, for the period 2014–2023.

Results. The treatment outcome in the observation groups after six months had some differences. Thus, among the patients of the first group, a positive result in the form of a functioning hip joint endoprosthesis without signs of infection was found in 82.6% of cases. All 8 (17.3%) patients of the first group with an unsatisfactory result were transferred to the cohort of two-stage treatment of periprosthetic infection and started it from the beginning. In the second group, a positive result was found in 97.1% of cases. A negative result was observed in 2 patients, and one of them was diagnosed with oncological disease with receipt of chemotherapeutic immunosuppressive treatment during the pause between the stages of orthopedic treatment.

Conclusions. When evaluating two tactics for the treatment of periprosthetic infection after hip arthroplasty, significant advantages of using a two-stage treatment tactic were revealed. Despite the lighter premorbid background of the patients, as well as a less severe microbiological burden in patients with one-stage treatment tactics, the treatment results are significantly better when using two-stage tactics of periprosthetic infection treatment.

Key words: periprosthetic infection, one-stage tactics, two-stage tactics, results.

REFERENCES

  1. Deirmengian C, McLaren A, Higuera C, Levine BR. Physician Use of Multiple Criteria to Diagnose Periprosthetic Joint Infection May Be Less Accurate Than the Use of an Individual Test. 2022 Nov 12;14(11):e31418. doi: 10.7759/ cureus.31418. PMID: 36382315; PMCID: PMC9653271.
  2. Flaten D, Berrigan L, Spirkina A, Gin A. Risk of Treatment Failure for Prosthetic Joint Infections: Retrospective Chart Review in an Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy Program. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2023 Jan 9;76(1):14–22. doi: 10.4212/cjhp.3264. PMID: 36683659; PMCID: PMC9817224.
  3. Jin X, Gallego Luxan B, Hanly M, et al. Estimating incidence rates of periprosthetic joint infection after hip and knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis using linked registry and administrative health data. Bone Joint J. 2022 Sep;104-B(9):1060–1066. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.104B9.BJJ-2022-0116.R1. PMID: 36047015; PMCID: PMC9948458.
  4. Jones CW, Selemon N, Nocon A, Bostrom M, Westrich G, Sculco PK. The Influence of Spacer Design on the Rate of Complications in Two-Stage Revision Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019 Jun;34(6):1201–1206. doi: 10.1016/ j.arth.2019.02.012. Epub 2019 Feb 15. PMID: 30879874.
  5. Kozaily ME, Timothy L, Tan M, et al. Interim spacer exchange for treatment of periprosthetic joint infection: almost half the patients fail subsequently. J Arthroplasty. 2021; 37(1): 150–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.08.028.
  6. Kunutsor SK, Beswick AD, Whitehouse MR, Wylde V, Blom AW. Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention for periprosthetic joint infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. J Infect. 2018 Dec;77(6):479–488. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2018.08.017. PMID: 30205122.
  7. Kurtz SM, Lau EC, Son M-S, Chang ET, Zimmerli W, Parvizi J. Are We Winning or Losing the Battle With Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Trends in Periprosthetic Joint Infection and Mortality Risk for the Medicare Population. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(10):3238–3245. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.05.042.
  8. Morcillo D, Detrembleur C, Poilvache H, Van Cauter M, Cyr Yombi J, Cornu O. Debridement, antibiotics, irrigation and retention in prosthetic joint infection: predictive tools of failure. Acta Orthop Belg. 2020 Dec;86(4):636–643. PMID: 33861911.
  9. Olearo F, Zanichelli V, Exarchakou A, et al. The Impact of Antimicrobial Therapy Duration in the Treatment of Prosthetic Joint Infections Depending on Surgical Strategies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2023 May 7;10(5):ofad246. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofad246. PMID: 37265666; PMCID: PMC10230567.
  10. Shohat N, Bauer T, Buttaro M, et al. Hip and knee section, what is the definition of a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee and the hip? Can the same criteria be used for both joints? Proceedings of international consensus on orthopedic infections. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34:S325–S327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.09.045.
  11. Veerman K, Raessens J, Telgt D, Smulders K, Goosen JHM. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention after revision arthroplasty: antibiotic mismatch, timing, and repeated DAIR associated with poor outcome. Bone Joint J. 2022 Apr;104-B(4):464–471. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.104B4.BJJ-2021-1264.R1. PMID: 35360944.
  12. Zahar A, Klaber I, Gerken A-M, et al. Ten-Year Results Following One-Stage Septic Hip Exchange in the Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(6):1221–1226. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.02.021.
View article PDF