Background and purpose: Both cemented and uncemented stem fixation is used in 2-stage hip revision arthroplasty addressing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We aimed to compare the risk of infection relapse and the risk of reoperation for any reason between uncemented and cemented stem fixation.Methods: Patients who underwent 2-stage hip revision arthroplasty for PJI between 2005 and 2020 were included. Data on baseline demographics, implant type, and microbiological and antibiotic treatment data was obtained from a local registry and medical records. Kaplan–Meier analysis compared relapse-free survival and reoperation-free survival between uncemented (n = 60) and cemented (n = 34) stems. Cox regression models were fitted to assess adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for the risk of relapse or reoperation with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results: 94 patients underwent 2-stage revision hip arthroplasty for PJI. Unadjusted 2-year relapse-free survival rates were 95% (CI 89–100) for patients with uncemented stem fixation and 97% (CI 90–100) for those with cemented fixation. Reoperation-free survival at 10 years was 82% (CI 70–95) for patients with uncemented fixation and 61% (CI 43–85) for those with cemented fixation. Using cemented fixation as the reference, the aHR for infection relapse was 2.0 (CI 0.2–20.1, P = 0.6) for uncemented fixation, whereas the aHR for reoperation was 0.3 (CI 0.1–0.9, P = 0.03).Conclusion: We showed no statistical difference in the risk of infection relapse, but uncemented stem fixation in 2-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI was associated with a reduced risk of reoperation for any reason. Uncemented stems may thus be a suitable choice in 2-stage revisions for PJI when this concept is believed to provide better fixation.
Palechoros et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: