Adult Reconstruction

Total Hip Arthroplasty - Two-Stage Revision for Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection

Comprehensive surgical technique guide for two-stage revision THA for chronic periprosthetic joint infection with MSIS criteria, articulating spacer, high-dose antibiotic cement protocol, and reimplantation strategies

Core Procedure
advanced
By OrthoVellum Medical Education Team

Reviewed by OrthoVellum Editorial Team

Editorial maintenance, source checking, and correction workflow • Published by OrthoVellum Medical Education Team

High Yield Overview

TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY - TWO-STAGE REVISION FOR CHRONIC PERIPROSTHETIC JOINT INFECTION

Posterior (Moore/Southern) approach - preserves abductors, allows Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy if needed | advanced

Critical Danger Structures

Danger 1: Sciatic Nerve

Location: 2-3cm posterior and inferior to posterior acetabular rim, may be displaced medially by subsided stem or encased in scar tissue

Protection: Early identification with blunt dissection, finger protection throughout, gentle retraction with Hohmann or nerve retractor, avoid limb lengthening over 4cm, 2-5% injury rate in revision vs 0.2% in primary

Danger 2: Superior Gluteal Neurovascular Bundle

Location: 5cm superior to greater trochanter, exits greater sciatic notch above piriformis muscle insertion

Protection: Avoid dissection superior to piriformis tendon, stay anterior to greater sciatic notch, injury causes abductor denervation and Trendelenburg gait

Danger 3: Femoral Vessels

Location: Anterior to hip joint, medial to proximal femur along iliopsoas

Protection: Catastrophic bleeding if perforated during anterior reaming or cement removal, control reamer depth, maintain finger in anterior joint to monitor breakthrough, immediate vascular consultation if breach

Danger 4: Abductor Attachment (Greater Trochanter)

Location: Greater trochanter is insertion of gluteus medius (lateral/superior facet) and gluteus minimus (anterior facet)

Protection: If ETO performed, requires stable cable fixation with 3+ cables for union, protected weight-bearing 6-8 weeks, failure causes Trendelenburg gait, non-union rate 5-10%

Danger 5: Quadrilateral Plate (Medial Acetabular Wall)

Location: Thin medial wall of acetabulum separating joint from intrapelvic structures (iliac vessels, obturator neurovascular bundle)

Protection: At risk during aggressive acetabular debridement or reaming, recognize pre-op on X-ray/CT (Kohler's line, teardrop), gentle technique medially, immediate laparotomy if intrapelvic breach with bleeding

Mnemonic

SPACERSPACER - Antibiotic Spacer Requirements

Memory Hook:SPACER covers the essential antibiotic spacer principles for Stage 1 success - examiner expects understanding of high-dose antibiotics, articulating vs static decision, and interval timing

Mnemonic

RIFAMPINRIFAMPIN - Staphylococcal PJI Antibiotic Strategy

Memory Hook:RIFAMPIN protocol is high-yield for PJI vivas - understand the rationale for combination therapy, timing of rifampicin initiation (after wound healing), and antibiotic holiday before Stage 2

MSIS Diagnostic Criteria for PJI

Major Criteria (need 2 or more):

  1. Sinus tract communicating with prosthesis
  2. Synovial fluid analysis: WBC over 3000 cells/µL OR PMN percentage over 80%
  3. Serum markers: ESR over 30 mm/h AND CRP over 10 mg/L
  4. Positive cultures: 2 or more separate samples with same organism
  5. Histology: Over 5 polymorphonuclear leukocytes per high-power field (400×) in 5 separate fields

Minor Criteria (supportive but not diagnostic alone):

  • Single positive culture
  • Elevated synovial CRP over 10 mg/L
  • Elevated alpha-defensin
  • Elevated synovial leukocyte esterase
  • Positive synovial C6 peptide

Exam Pearl

Exam Key: MSIS criteria revised in 2018 - need 2 or more major criteria OR score-based system using minor criteria. Sinus tract is pathognomonic (definite infection). Tissue culture more sensitive than fluid culture (94% vs 70% for multiple samples). Hold antibiotics 2 weeks pre-op to maximize culture yield from 60% to 80%.

Antibiotic Holiday Protocol

Rationale: Antibiotics suppress bacteria but don't eradicate biofilm - creates false negative cultures

Stage 1: Stop antibiotics 2 weeks before surgery

  • Improves culture yield from 60% to 80%
  • Allows identification of causative organism
  • Risk: systemic sepsis if highly virulent organism (monitor clinically)

Stage 2: Stop antibiotics 2 weeks before reimplantation

  • Unmasks persistent infection
  • Improves aspiration sensitivity from 40% to 75%
  • If aspiration positive after holiday: abort Stage 2, repeat debridement

Exam Pearl

Exam Key: Antibiotic holiday critical at BOTH stages. Unknown organism reduces two-stage success by 20% (unable to target antibiotics). False reassurance from antibiotics masking persistent infection at Stage 2 leads to 50% failure rate.

Imaging Assessment for Bone Loss

Radiographs:

  • AP pelvis and lateral hip
  • Judet views (obturator oblique, iliac oblique) for acetabular assessment
  • Full-length femur AP/lateral if previous fracture or extensive osteolysis

CT Scan:

  • Assess acetabular bone stock (Paprosky classification)
  • Identify pelvic discontinuity
  • Measure bone defects for reconstruction planning
  • Plan custom implants if needed (triflange)

Paprosky Acetabular Classification:

  • Type I: Intact rim, minimal migration, intact teardrop/Kohler's line
  • Type IIA: Superior-medial wear, intact rim, Kohler's line intact
  • Type IIB: Superior migration under 3cm, medial wall intact, ischial lysis
  • Type IIC: Medial wear, Kohler's line disrupted, intact columns
  • Type IIIA: Severe superior migration over 3cm, less than 50% host bone contact
  • Type IIIB: Pelvic discontinuity, severe medial/global deficiency

Paprosky Femoral Classification:

  • Type I: Minimal metaphyseal bone loss, intact diaphysis
  • Type II: Extensive metaphyseal damage, intact diaphysis
  • Type IIIA: Metaphyseal damage, 4cm or more diaphyseal contact available
  • Type IIIB: Extensive metaphyseal and diaphyseal damage, under 4cm contact
  • Type IV: Extensive damage, nonsupportive isthmus, scarce diaphyseal contact

Pre-operative Planning Essentials

  • Order antibiotic cement components (vancomycin 4g vials, tobramycin 2.4g)
  • Cell saver CONTRAINDICATED in infection (disseminates bacteria)
  • Consent for ETO, nerve injury, recurrent infection, salvage procedures (Girdlestone, arthrodesis, amputation)
  • Ensure availability of revision implants: augments, cages, modular stems, dual mobility
  • Infectious Disease consultation for antibiotic selection

Major Complications of Two-Stage Revision THA

Exam Viva Scenarios

Practice these scenarios to excel in your viva examination

VIVA SCENARIOStandard

EXAMINER

"A 68-year-old woman presents 18 months after primary THA with 6 weeks of progressive hip pain, elevated CRP of 45, and ESR of 65. Hip aspiration shows WBC of 8500 with 92% PMN. Culture grows MRSA. How would you diagnose and manage this?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is chronic periprosthetic joint infection meeting MSIS criteria (need 2 or more major criteria - she has elevated synovial WBC over 3000, PMN over 80%, elevated serum markers ESR over 30 AND CRP over 10, and positive culture). Chronic PJI (over 4 weeks duration) is best treated with two-stage revision. I would counsel the patient on 85-90% infection eradication rate but higher complications than primary THA including 10-20% reinfection at 2 years, 10-15% dislocation, and lower satisfaction. Management plan: (1) Stop antibiotics 2 weeks pre-operatively to maximize intraoperative culture yield from 60% to 80%, (2) Stage 1 surgery - posterior approach, obtain 5-6 tissue cultures before debridement, radical debridement of all infected tissue including complete synovectomy and interface membrane excision, ETO if cemented stem for complete cement removal, minimum 9L irrigation, change all instruments after lavage, insert articulating antibiotic spacer using high-dose Hanssen protocol (4g vancomycin plus 2.4g tobramycin per 40g cement), (3) IV vancomycin 15mg/kg q12h for minimum 6 weeks, add rifampicin 450mg BD after wound healed day 5-7 paired with fusidic acid to prevent resistance, (4) Monitor CRP/ESR weekly (should halve each week), (5) Minimum 6-8 week interval, (6) Stop antibiotics 2 weeks before Stage 2, perform aspiration to rule out persistent infection, (7) Stage 2 if markers normalized and aspiration negative - frozen section mandatory (if over 5 PMN/HPF abort reimplantation), reimplantation with cementless components and dual mobility cup to reduce dislocation risk from 10-15% to 2-3%, (8) Post-Stage 2 antibiotics for 6 weeks vancomycin (debated but most give for MRSA), (9) Lifelong surveillance with CRP/ESR and X-rays.
VIVA SCENARIOStandard

EXAMINER

"You are performing Stage 1 two-stage revision for chronic PJI. The femoral stem is well-fixed cemented. Describe your approach to cement removal and femoral component extraction."

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
Well-fixed cemented stem in setting of PJI requires Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy for safe cement removal. Attempting cement removal without ETO has 30% perforation risk (anterior or medial femur). ETO technique: (1) Mark 8-10cm length on anterolateral femur starting at tip of greater trochanter extending distally, (2) One-third circumference width preserving posterior two-thirds, (3) Preserve vastus lateralis muscle attachment posteriorly (blood supply from inferior branch of lateral circumflex femoral artery), (4) Use oscillating saw to make three cuts: anterior vertical cut full length, distal horizontal cut connecting, posterior vertical-oblique cut connecting to distal (creates three-sided window), (5) Hinge open the trochanteric fragment like opening a book with abductors (gluteus medius and minimus) still attached, (6) Now have direct visualization of femoral stem and cement, (7) Remove stem, (8) Use ultrasonic cement removal system or high-speed burr with long thin carbide bits to remove ALL cement systematically from proximal to distal, (9) Remove every fragment of cement (biofilm harbor - retained cement causes recurrence), (10) Protect anterior femur with finger in joint to detect any breakthrough, (11) After cement removed and spacer inserted, reduce ETO fragment anatomically (greater trochanter aligns with femoral shaft contour), (12) Fix with minimum 3 cerclage cables (18-gauge stainless steel or titanium) - pass around intact femur proximal to osteotomy and distal to osteotomy, tighten sequentially for compression, (13) May add vertical cable longitudinally or specialized ETO plate if unstable, (14) Test stability by pulling on abductors - must be rigid, (15) Protected weight-bearing until union confirmed on X-ray (6-8 weeks), then progress to full. ETO union rate 90% with proper fixation. Non-union rate 5-10% - risk factors: infection, inadequate fixation (under 3 cables), smoking, non-compliance.
VIVA SCENARIOStandard

EXAMINER

"Explain the articulating versus static antibiotic spacer decision. What are the key advantages and disadvantages of each? When would you choose one over the other?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
I prefer articulating spacer for most two-stage revisions as it offers multiple advantages with acceptable complication profile. Articulating spacer advantages: (1) Maintains hip ROM preventing soft tissue contracture, (2) Preserves limb length and offset making Stage 2 easier, (3) Allows weight-bearing as tolerated mobilization which benefits patient function and bone quality, (4) Similar infection eradication rate to static spacer (85-90%), (5) Easier reimplantation at Stage 2 with preserved anatomy and no contracture. Disadvantages: (1) Higher dislocation rate 13-15% versus 5% with static (but acceptable and manageable), (2) Spacer fracture rate 5-10% especially if delayed Stage 2 over 3 months, (3) More technically complex to fabricate requiring either commercial preformed system (PROSTALAC, Spacer-G) or hand-made using molds. Static spacer advantages: (1) Lower dislocation rate 5% versus 13-15% articulating, (2) Simpler to make (cement-on-cement block or just antibiotic beads), (3) More stable construct. Disadvantages: (1) Causes soft tissue contracture and ROM loss, (2) Limb shortening (typically 3-5cm), (3) No weight-bearing allowed (toe-touch only), (4) Much more difficult Stage 2 reimplantation (contracted tissues, distorted anatomy, bone loss from disuse), (5) Similar infection control to articulating so no benefit for added morbidity. I would choose ARTICULATING for: most cases (standard choice), stable soft tissue envelope, compliant patient who can follow hip precautions. I would choose STATIC for: severe abductor deficiency with instability, recurrent spacer dislocation (failed articulating), non-compliant patient unable to follow precautions, severe bone loss where articulating spacer would be unstable. For both types I use high-dose antibiotic cement (Hanssen protocol): 4g vancomycin plus 2.4g tobramycin per 40g cement providing 200× MIC local concentration.

Two-Stage Revision THA for Chronic PJI - Exam Summary

High-Yield Exam Summary

References

  1. Osmon DR, Berbari EF, Berendt AR, et al. Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56(1):e1-e25. doi:10.1093/cid/cis803

  2. Parvizi J, Tan TL, Goswami K, et al. The 2018 definition of periprosthetic hip and knee infection: an evidence-based and validated criteria. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(5):1309-1314.e2. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.078

  3. Haddad FS, Muirhead-Allwood SK, Manktelow ARJ, Bacarese-Hamilton I. Two-stage uncemented revision hip arthroplasty for infection. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000;82-B(5):689-694. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.82B5.10668

  4. Hanssen AD, Spangehl MJ. Practical applications of antibiotic-loaded bone cement for treatment of infected joint replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(427):79-85. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000143554.56897.26

  5. Younger ASE, Duncan CP, Masri BA, McGraw RW. The outcome of two-stage arthroplasty using a custom-made interval spacer to treat the infected hip. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12(6):615-623. doi:10.1016/S0883-5403(97)90034-2

  6. Masri BA, Panagiotopoulos KP, Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP. Cementless two-stage exchange arthroplasty for infection after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(1):72-78. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2006.02.156

  7. Gomez MM, Tan TL, Manrique J, Deirmengian GK, Parvizi J. The fate of spacers in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(18):1495-1502. doi:10.2106/JBJS.N.00958

  8. Choi HR, Kwon YM, Freiberg AA, Nelson SB, Malchau H. Periprosthetic joint infection with negative culture results: clinical characteristics and treatment outcome. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(6):899-903. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.10.022

  9. Trampuz A, Zimmerli W. Diagnosis and treatment of infections associated with fracture-fixation devices. Injury. 2006;37(Suppl 2):S59-S66. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2006.04.010

  10. Beswick AD, Elvers KT, Smith AJ, Gooberman-Hill R, Lovering A, Blom AW. What is the evidence base to guide surgical treatment of infected hip prostheses? Systematic review of longitudinal studies in unselected patients. BMC Med. 2012;10:18. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-10-18