1.5-Stage Versus 2-Stage Exchange Total Hip Arthroplasty for Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infections: A Comparison of Survivorships, Reinfections, and Patient-Reported Outcomes

Management of periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA) has traditionally consisted of a 2-stage approach. However, 1.5-stage exchange has garnered recent interest. We compared 1.5-stage to 2-stage exchange recipients. Specifically, we assessed (1) infection-free survivorship and risk factors for reinfection; (2) 2-year surgical/medical outcomes (eg, reoperations, readmissions); (3) Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores for Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR); and (4) radiographic outcomes (ie, progressive radiolucent lines, subsidences, and failures).We reviewed a consecutive series of 1.5-stage or planned 2-stage THAs. A total of 123 hips were included (1.5-stage: n = 54; 2-stage: n = 69) with mean clinical follow-up of 2.5 years (up to 8 years). Bivariate analyses assessed incidences of medical and surgical outcomes. Additionally, HOOS-JR scores and radiographs were evaluated.The 1.5-stage exchange had 11% greater infection-free survivorship at final follow-up compared to 2 stages (94% versus 83%, P = .048). Morbid obesity was the only independent risk factor demonstrating increased reinfection among both cohorts. No differences in surgical/medical outcomes were observed between groups (P = .730). HOOS-JR scores improved markedly for both cohorts (1.5-stage difference = 44.3, 2-stage difference = 32.5; P < .001). A total of 82% of 1.5-stage patients did not demonstrate progressive femoral or acetabular radiolucencies, while 94% of 2-stage recipients did not have femoral radiolucencies and 90% did not have acetabular radiolucencies.The 1.5-stage exchange appeared to be an acceptable treatment alternative for periprosthetic joint infections after THAs with noninferior infection eradication. Therefore, this procedure should be considered by joint surgeons for treatment of periprosthetic hip infections.