Simultaneous bilateral hip replacement reveals superior outcome and fewer complications than two-stage procedures: a prospective study including 1819 patients and 5801 follow-ups from a total joint replacement registry

Background Total joint replacements represent a considerable part of day-to-day orthopaedic routine and a substantial proportion of patients undergoing unilateral total hip arthroplasty require a contralateral treatment after the first operation. This report compares complications and functional outcome of simultaneous versus early and delayed two-stage bilateral THA over a five-year follow-up period. Methods The study is a post hoc analysis of prospectively collected data in the framework of the European IDES hip registry. The database query resulted in 1819 patients with 5801 follow-ups treated with bilateral THA between 1965 and 2002. According to the timing of the two operations the sample was divided into three groups: I) 247 patients with simultaneous bilateral THA, II) 737 patients with two-stage bilateral THA within six months, III) 835 patients with two-stage bilateral THA between six months and five years. Results Whereas postoperative hip pain and flexion did not differ between the groups, the best walking capacity was observed in group I and the worst in group III. The rate of intraoperative complications in the first group was comparable to that of the second. The frequency of postoperative local and systemic complication in group I was the lowest of the three groups. The highest rate of complications was observed in group III. Conclusions From the point of view of possible intra- and postoperative complications, one-stage bilateral THA is equally safe or safer than two-stage interventions. Additionally, from an outcome perspective the one-stage procedure can be considered to be advantageous.

[Antibiotic prophylaxis for late blood-borne infections of joint prostheses]

By analogy with endocarditis prophylaxis, patients with joint prostheses are often given antibiotics before invasive procedures or dental treatment. However, this analogy is not justified: The pathogenesis and bacterial spectrum of infections of artificial joints differ from those of endocarditis. Since the efficacy of administering prophylactic antibiotics to patients with joint prostheses has never been scientifically proven, there is no general indication for such prophylaxis. On the other hand, infections in other parts of the body should be actively sought and treated promptly. Prophylactic antibiotic administration may be appropriate in individual cases during a procedure in patients who are at increased risk of a haematogenic prosthesis infection as a result of bacteraemia. For operations routinely performed under perioperative antibiotic cover, the same prophylaxis should also be used for patients with joint prostheses.