Topic Highlight
Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Orthop. Jul 18, 2014; 5(3): 218-224
Published online Jul 18, 2014. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v5.i3.218
Table 2 Overview of 11 studies reporting about prosthesis retention at the site of periprosthetic hip joint infections with regard to surgical treatment modalities, -complications, infection eradication rate and length of follow-up
Ref.Surgical treatment procedureSurgical complicationsInfection eradication rate
Aboltins et al[6]Debridement, lavage,1/13 aseptic prosthesis loosening92.30%
Change of PE-liner
[Median = 1 (1-4)]
Aboltins et al[7]Debridement, lavage,N.c.d.89.50%
Change of PE-liner
[Median = 3 (3-6)]
Anagnostakos et al[8]Acetabular cup removal +2/12 draining sinus91.60%
Spacer head onto retained stemAfter spacer head implantation;
Mean implantation period 88 (35-270) d1/12 spacer dislocation;
3/12 prosthesis dislocation
Choi et al[9]19/28 debridement, irrigation,5/28 staged revision,50%
Change of PE-liner6/28 repeated debridement,
9/28 debridement, irrigation,4/28 resection arthroplasty
No change of PE-liner
Crockarell et al[10]Debridement1/42 prosthesis dislocation,21%1
1/42 periprosthetic femoral fracture,
1/42 exitus due to sepsis
Kelm et al[11]Debridement, pulsatile lavage,None92.80%
Change of PE-liner,
Vacuum-assisted closure
Klouche et al[12]Debridement, irrigationn.r.75%
Change of PE-liner and femoral head
Lee et al[13]Acetabular cup removal +n.r.89.50%
Spacer head onto retained stem
Tsukayama et al[2]Debridement, change of PE-liner1/35 acetabular component loosening71% (early)
2/6 acetabular component loosening50% (acute hematogenous)
Waagsbø et al[3]Debridement + prosthesis retentionn.r.67.50%
Westberg et al[14]Debridement, pulsatile lavage,8/38 prosthesis dislocation71%
Change of modular prosthesis components