Material and Methods: Retrospective review was done to the patients who received two-stage revisions with an antibiotic loaded cement-spacer for PJI of the hip between January 2010 to May 2015. We found 65 patients (65 hips) with positive culture findings. Eight patients were lost to follow-up and excluded from the study. Among the rest of the 57 patients, methicillin-resistant infection (MR Group) was found in 28 cases. We also evaluate the 29 other cases that caused by the other pathogen as control group. We compared all of the relevant medical records and the treatment outcomes between the two groups.
Results: The mean of follow-up period was 33.7 months in the methicillin-resistant group and 28.4 months in the control group (p = 0.27). The causal pathogens in the methicillin-resistant group were: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in 10 cases, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE) in 16 cases and Methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (MRCNS) in two cases. The reimplantation rate was 92.8% and 89.6% in the methicillin-resistant and control group, respectively (p= 0.66). The rates of recurrent infection after reimplantation were 23.1% (6/26) in the methicillin-resistant group and 7.6% (2/26) in the control group (p= 0.12). The overall infection control rate was 71.4% (20/28) and 89.6% (26/29) in the methicillin-resistant and control group, respectively (p = 0.08). Both groups showed comparable baseline data on mean age, BMI, gender distribution, preoperative ESR/CRP/WBC and comorbidities.
Conclusions: Two-stage revision procedure resulted in low infection control rate and high infection recurrency rate for the treatment of methicillin-resistant periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip. Development of the treatment strategy is needed to improve the outcome of methicillin-resistant periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip.
Materials and Methods: We reviewed prospectively collected data in our tertiary hospital arthroplasty registry and identified patients who underwent revision THA between 2001 and 2014, with a minimum of two years follow-up. The study group (two-stage revision THA for PJI) consists of 23 patients and the control group (one-stage revision THA for aseptic reasons) consists of 231 patients. Patient demographics, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Short Form-36 (SF-36) scores and patient reported satisfaction were evaluated. Student's t-test was used to compare continuous variables between the two groups. Statistical significance was defined as p <0.05.
Results: The pre-operative demographics and clinical scores were relatively similar between the two groups of patients. At two years, patients who underwent revision THA for PJI reported a better WOMAC Pain Score and OHS as compared to aseptic revision THA. A similar proportion of patients were satisfied with their results of surgery in both groups (p=0.093).
Conclusions: Although patients who underwent revision THA for PJI had poorer pre-operative functional scores (WOMAC function and SF-36 PF), at two years follow-up, these two groups of patients have comparable post-operative outcomes. Interestingly, patients who had revision THA for PJI reported a better clinical outcome in terms of OHS and WOMAC Pain score as compared to the aseptic group. We conclude that the revision THA for PJI is not inferior to aseptic revision THA in terms of patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes.