Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of one-stage revision and two-stage revision for treatment of infected total hip arthroplasty (THA).
Methods: Fifteen patients with infected THA were treated in our hospital between 2005 and 2010. Six patients were treated with one-stage revision and nine patients with two-stage revision. We compared the duration of hospitalization, operative times, estimated blood loss, recurrence rate of infection, and complications for the two procedures.
Results: The one-stage group had a significantly shorter hospitalization period and operative time than the two-stage group. There were no significant differences in the other parameters. Recurrence of infection occurred in only one case in the two-stage group. With respect to complications, the two-stage group had three dislocations of cement spacer and one patient had dissociation of cement spacer. Dislocation of the femoral head, which is a major complication, occurred in one patient in the one-stage group and in two patients in the two-stage group.
Conclusion: We concluded that the clinical results of one-stage revision for infected THA were similar to those of two-stage revision. One-stage revision is therefore effective as a treatment of infected THA, as is the two-stage procedure.
