Arthroplasty Complications, Hip Prosthesis Infection
Conditions
Keywords
DAIR, Transgluteal approach, Posterior approach
Brief summary
The functional outcome and quality of life after treatment for an infected hip arthroplasty have been found to be significantly worse compared to an uncomplicated arthroplasty. However, the type of revision surgery chosen to treat the infection plays a role for the functional outcome. The concept of DAIR (debridement, antibiotics and implant retention) has been shown to yield god results with respect to infection control in cases of early infection with a stable implant and better functional results than a to-stage revision. In patients where infection control was achieved after just one DAIR procedure the functional outcome was comparable to an uncomplicated primary arthroplasty. However, it is not known if the operative approach used for the primary and revision surgery plays a role for the functional result after treatment of an infected total hip arthroplasty with DAIR. The project's aim is to investigate if the choice of the operative approach (transgluteal or posterior) for the primary hip replacement and the revision surgery has an influence on the functional result after debridement and implant retention for an infected total hip replacement.
Detailed description
Potential study participants will be identified in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Patients who have been revised once for an infected total hip arthroplasty with debridement and implant retention and in whom either the transgluteal og posterior operative approach was used in both procedures will be selected. The potential participants will be contacted by letter. They will be asked for written informed consent and to fill out three questionnaires: the Hip Disability Osteoarthritis Score (HOOS), which also allows for the calculation of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), the EQ-5D (quality of life) and a questionnaire asking about confirmation that the patient only has been revised once for his/her infected arthroplasty, about limping, other complications (nerve injury, dislocation, reoperation for other causes than infection), if the infection is considered to have been eradicated and overall satisfaction. The data recorded in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register will be used in a multiple linear regression analysis to evaluate if the surgical approach is an independent factor influencing the outcome measures.
Interventions
PROCEDURETransgluteal approach to the hip joint
Operative approach to the hip joint where the abductors are partly detached from the greater trochanter and the hip joint is approached through the anterior part of the capsule.
PROCEDUREPosterior approach to the hip joint
Operative approach to the hip joint where the short external rotators are detached from the greater trochanter and the hip joint is approached through the posterior part of the capsule.
Sponsors
Haukeland University Hospital
University Hospital, Akershus
Study design
Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
RETROSPECTIVE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* The infected total hip arthroplasty has only been revised once. * The revision procedure was a debridement and implant retention. * Both, the primary and the revision procedure were performed through the same surgical approach; either the transgluteal or the posterior approach.
Exclusion criteria
* No written informed consent.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Function subscale score of the WOMAC | At minimum 1 year, on average 5 year follow-up from the DAIR procedure | Function subscale score of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| WOMAC score | At minimum 1 year, on average 5 year follow-up from the DAIR procedure | Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index score |
| HOOS | At minimum 1 year, on average 5 year follow-up from the DAIR procedure | Hip Disability Osteoarthritis Score |
| EQ-5D score | At minimum 1 year, on average 5 year follow-up from the DAIR procedure | Quality of life score |
| Other complications | At minimum 1 year, on average 5 year follow-up from the DAIR procedure | Patient reported nerve injury, dislocation, reoperation for other causes than infection. |
| Overall satisfaction | At minimum 1 year, on average 5 year follow-up from the DAIR procedure | Overall satisfaction with the revised total hip replacement assessed by questionnaire. |
| Limping | At minimum 1 year, on average 5 year follow-up from the DAIR procedure | Patient reported limping on the side of the revised total hip replacement. |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Infection eradication | At minimum 1 year, on average 5 year follow-up from the DAIR procedure | Patient reported eradication of the infection of their total hip arthroplasty. |
Countries
Norway
Outcome results
None listed