Comparison of the results of the Girdlestone pseudarthrosis with reimplantation of a total hip replacement

Schröder, J.; Saris, Daniël B.F.; Besselaar, P. P.; Marti, René K

doi:10.1007/s002640050245

Cited by 49 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is worth noting that Schröder et al used a significantly longer time period between revision stages (mean three years) than that employed in the present study. This results in more severe muscle contracture and changes in walking biomechanics, and hence the less favourable outcomes reported by Schröder et al [18]. Blomfeldt et al report high rate of Girdlestone operation performed in patients with PJI treated primary or secondary with arthroplasties for displaced femoral neck fracture and the outcome treatment was unfavourable [19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cabrita et al report no significant difference in functional results in patients treated with a two-stage procedure, either with a spacer or without [6]. In a study of hip function following Girdlestone pseudarthrosis, Schröder et al conclude that the observed improvement in hip function following reimplantation was marginal and the results were comparable to a well-functioning pseudarthrosis [18]. It is worth noting that Schröder et al used a significantly longer time period between revision stages (mean three years) than that employed in the present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Two stage revision hip arthroplasty in periprosthetic joint infection. Comparison study: with or without the use of a spacer

Marczak

Synder

Sibiński

et al. 2017

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare two methods of two-stage surgery for PJI (periprosthetic joint infection) after THA (total hip arthroplasty): one with and one without the use of an antibiotic-loaded cement spacer. Methods This retrospective study was performed on 99 consecutive patients (99 hips) with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Patients were divided into two groups: (1) in whom the operation was performed using a spacer, and (2) for whom a spacer was not used. Results For the whole cohort, the results improved between pre-operative and final follow-up. Recurrence of infection was found in nine out of 98 patients (9.2%) and was not significantly different between the two groups. Patients treated with a spacer had better functional improvement in the interim period, but the VAS score was better in the non-spacer group. The improvement in final function was better in the spacer group with regard to HHS, but not according to WOMAC score or VAS at final follow-up. Conclusion The resection arthroplasty should be awarded particular consideration in cases of poor soft tissue quality, bone stock deficiency, when complications related to spacer use are expected or chances of new hip endoprosthesis implantation are low.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two stage revision hip arthroplasty in periprosthetic joint infection. Comparison study: with or without the use of a spacer

Marczak

Synder

Sibiński

et al. 2017

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This procedure is associated with control of pain but lower functional scores [34]. A recent study by Ganse et al [15] reviewed 17 patients at an average of 52 months post surgery for infected THA; five were managed with excision arthroplasty and 12 with two-stage revision.…”

Section: Salvage Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infection in total hip replacement: meta-analysis

Senthi

Munro

Pitto

2010

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

141

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…3 The control of chronic infection in arthroplasties requires the removal of the prosthetic components and extensive debridement. After this, there are 3 types of procedures that may be considered: [4][5][6] 1) Simple wound closure and maintenance of the patient without an implant, through the Girdlestone surgery; 7 this is a safe method as regards infectious control, but functional outcome is poor. 8,9 2) Immediate placement of a definitive prosthesis (1-stage revision), which was widely used by European surgeons during the 1980s and 1990s.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective Study of the Treatment of Infected Hip Arthroplasties With or Without the Use of an Antibiotic-Loaded Cement Spacer

Cabrita

Croci

Camargo

et al. 2007

Clinics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

0.05). The average leg length discrepancy was 2.6 cm in the control group and 1.5 cm in the study group (P < 0.05). The patients treated with a spacer had better clinical results (81.5% of patients with good results against 60.0% for the control group). CONCLUSION: The use of an antibiotic-loaded spacer in the 2-stage treatment of infected hip arthroplasties provides better infection control with good functional results and is superior to treatment in 2 stages without a spacer. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, Level I-1.]]>

show abstract

Comparison of the results of the Girdlestone pseudarthrosis with reimplantation of a total hip replacement

Cited by 49 publications

References 12 publications

Two stage revision hip arthroplasty in periprosthetic joint infection. Comparison study: with or without the use of a spacer

Two stage revision hip arthroplasty in periprosthetic joint infection. Comparison study: with or without the use of a spacer

Infection in total hip replacement: meta-analysis

Prospective Study of the Treatment of Infected Hip Arthroplasties With or Without the Use of an Antibiotic-Loaded Cement Spacer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About