Two-stage Total Hip Arthroplasty: How Often Does It Control Methicillin-resistant Infection?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Methicillin-resistant hip infections are increasingly common. Reports of the surgical management of these patients using two-stage THA show variable control of infection, but all reports used static spacers. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore determined (1) the rate of successful control of infection and (2) function in patients with methicillin-resistant infection treated with a two-stage THA using an articulated cement spacer during the first stage. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 50 patients who had a two-stage revision THA for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis infection. Twelve patients died, leaving 38 for review. All eligible patients completed quality-of-life outcome questionnaires (WOMAC, SF-12, Oxford-12, UCLA activity score, hip and knee satisfaction score). Minimum followup was 24 months after the second stage (mean, 58 months; range, 24-123 months). RESULTS: Of the 38 patients, eight (21%) had recurrence of their infection requiring further revision surgery. Of the remaining 27 patients, the mean WOMAC was 62, mean Oxford-12 60, mean UCLA activity score 4.3, and mean hip and knee satisfaction score 66. CONCLUSIONS: We found a treatment failure rate of 21% for patients with methicillin-resistant S. aureus or methicillin-resistant S. epidermidis infection. This is a higher rate than reported for two-stage THA for studies including patients infected with both nonresistant and resistant organisms. The functional scores for patients were also lower than those reported in the literature. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".