Can periprosthetic hip joint infections be successfully managed by debridement and prosthesis retention?

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 procedure	Surgical complications	Infection eradication rate
Aboltins et al[6]	Debridement, lavage,	1/13 aseptic prosthesis loosening	92.30%
	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 sinus	91.60%
	Spacer head onto retained stem	After spacer head implantation;
	Mean implantation period 88 (35-270) d	1/12 spacer dislocation;
		3/12 prosthesis dislocation
Choi et al[9]	19/28 debridement, irrigation,	5/28 staged revision,	50%
	Change of PE-liner	6/28 repeated debridement,
	9/28 debridement, irrigation,	4/28 resection arthroplasty
	No change of PE-liner
Crockarell et al[10]	Debridement	1/42 prosthesis dislocation,	21%1
		1/42 periprosthetic femoral fracture,
		1/42 exitus due to sepsis
Kelm et al[11]	Debridement, pulsatile lavage,	None	92.80%
	Change of PE-liner,
	Vacuum-assisted closure
Klouche et al[12]	Debridement, irrigation	n.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-liner	1/35 acetabular component loosening	71% (early)
		2/6 acetabular component loosening	50% (acute hematogenous)
Waagsbø et al[3]	Debridement + prosthesis retention	n.r.	67.50%
Westberg et al[14]	Debridement, pulsatile lavage,	8/38 prosthesis dislocation	71%
	Change of modular prosthesis components

PE: Polyethylene; N.c.d.: Not clearly described; n.r.: Not reported;

¹4/19 early successful, 2/4 acute hematogenous, 0/19 late.