Skip to main content
Download PDF

Diagnosis and surgical treatment of chronic destructive septic hip arthritis

Arthroplasty volume 7, Article number: 19 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Septic hip arthritis (SHA) is a relatively rare but hazardous disease. Much controversy exists regarding the definition, diagnosis and treatment of chronic destructive SHAs. This review aims to provide an overview of the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for chronic, destructive SHA and suggest possible research directions for this disease’s future diagnosis and treatment. There is no unified naming or classification standard for SHAs. Chronic destructive SHA still requires a comprehensive diagnosis combining history, signs, bacterial culture, histopathological examination, inflammation and other indicators, of which metagenomic next-generation sequencing is a promising diagnostic tool. Previous treatment options for this disease include debridement, debridement + Girdlestone femoral head and neck resection, and debridement + Girdlestone femoral head and neck resection + two-stage arthroplasty. Among them, one-stage spacer implantation + two-stage arthroplasty is the current standard surgical option with a high success rate and low reinfection rate, while one-stage arthroplasty is a new treatment option proposed in recent years with unique advantages but limitations in terms of surgical indications. In the future, more high-quality studies are needed to provide the latest evidence to support clinical decision-making.

Introduction

Septic hip arthritis (SHA) is a joint disease in which microorganisms invade the synovial membrane of joints and release various toxic substances, such as alpha haemolysin [1], resulting in purulent effusion in the joint capsule and destruction of the synovium [2]. It is a relatively rare but hazardous disease. If left undiagnosed and untreated, it can become chronic and persistent, resulting in progressive cartilage, bone destruction and, ultimately, loss of function [3]. The global incidence of SHA is estimated to be approximately 7.8 in 100,000 per year, but the mortality rate is approximately 10%, placing a heavy burden on society [4].

Currently, there are many controversies in the definition, diagnosis and treatment of chronic destructive SHA. Numerous studies have reported different surgical options combined with different therapeutic outcomes [5]. This article provides a review of the current status of treatment for chronic destructive SHAs. We focused on the treatment of chronic destructive SHAs, with an emphasis on hip debridement preservation and arthroplasty for chronic destructive SHAs.

Definition of chronic destructive SHA

At present, there is no standardised nomenclature or classification for SHAs. For example, “septic” can be expressed as “suppurative” or “pyogenic”. The duration of infection can be categorised into acute SHA (< 3 weeks) and chronic SHA (> 3 weeks) [5]. The causes of infection can be categorised as primary or secondary. Primary SHA usually originates from bloodstream transmission of an infection elsewhere in the body, whereas secondary SHA usually originates from hip surgery or procedures that do not include periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) [6]. The nature of the infection can be categorised as destructive SHA, persistent SHA, quiescent SHA or cured SHA [7]. The term “chronic destructive” SHA refers more to the active phase, specifically to SHA associated with persistent infection by pathogenic microorganisms.

The purpose of categorising SHAs is to better guide treatment. For instance, acute and chronic SHA can have completely different treatment options. In addition, the wide variety of nomenclature used can easily lead to a biased understanding of the concept of SHA, making clinical diagnosis and treatment difficult. Heterogeneity among studies with different definitions and categorisation criteria also make the evaluation and comparison of studies difficult. Therefore, it is important to systematically name and categorise SHAs to guide clinicians better in diagnosis and treatment.

Diagnosis of chronic destructive SHA

There are no standardised diagnostic criteria for chronic destructive SHA. A comprehensive diagnosis is still needed in conjunction with history, signs, bacterial culture, histopathological examination, inflammatory markers, etc. The manifestations associated with the early diagnosis of SHA have been summarized in Table 1. Clinical signs of SHA may manifest as sinus tracts communicating with the joints, localised redness, swelling, tenderness, exudation, joint pain and fever. Up to 90% of patients will have a low-grade fever [4, 8]. However, when a patient is immunosuppressed (e.g., with RA), the inflammatory response may be attenuated, resulting in a more ambiguous clinical picture[5].

Table 1 Manifestations associated with early diagnosis of SHA
Full size table

Inflammatory markers such as serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) may be elevated in chronic SA but have low specificity. A joint fluid white blood cell count > 50,000 cells/mm3 or a polymorphonuclear leukocyte percentage > 90% (PMN%) is used as a common criterion for the diagnosis of SHA [9]. However, SF < 50,000 or PMN% < 90% does not necessarily rule out SHA, as elderly patients or immunocompromised patients may not produce such a strong response [5]. Recent studies have shown that the serum neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and synovial fluid NLR (SF-NLR) have superior diagnostic and prognostic power for SHA compared with current clinical criteria [9]. Synovial lactate is also a predictor of inflammation in SHAs, with synovial lactate levels > 10 mmol/L significantly increasing the incidence of SHAs [10].

Imaging methods effectively evaluate the condition of the joint and surrounding soft tissues. Radiography is preferred because it can show evidence of cartilage or subchondral bone destruction and effusion. Ultrasonography is also a safe and cost-effective method for evaluating effusions. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) not only has a high sensitivity and specificity for assessing the condition of cartilage, surrounding soft tissues and bone, but it can also detect osteomyelitis.

Gram staining, culture, cell counting and analysis by arthrocentesis remain the current “gold standard” methods for the diagnosis of SHA. It was reported a wide variation in the culture-positive rate of pathogen in SHA in the known literature, ranging from approximately 50%–100% [3, 6, 7, 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. The most common pathogen is Staphylococcus aureus (30%–50%), including methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This is followed by coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), Streptococcus spp, gram-negative bacteria, anaerobes, etc. [3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19,20,21,22]. However, empiric antibiotic treatment prior to arthrocentesis could result in low positive rates of staining and culture. I. K. Sigmund et al., proposed that three to six tissue specimens of the periprosthetic membrane and pseudocapsule should be collected at revision arthroplasty for PJI [23]. Given the similarity between PJI and SHA, it is crucial to specify the number of tissue specimens for histopathological analysis. With the development of molecular diagnostic technology, next-generation sequencing (NGS), especially metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS), has been widely used in clinical diagnosis [24]. Studies have shown that mNGS technology has improved the detection rate of pathogenic microorganisms in infectious diseases such as oral, intracranial and lung infections [25]. In addition, some microorganisms that cannot be detected by routine culture, such as Rickettsia burgdorferi, Mycoplasma hominis and Mycoplasma salivarium, can be accurately identified by mNGS [26, 27]. Previous studies have also shown that mNGS can be used to effectively identify pathogens in the synovial fluid of patients with joint infections, especially for patients with negative cultures due to fastidious pathogens or recent use of antibiotics. This technique has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity and is less affected by antimicrobial therapy [28,29,30,31,32]. Recent studies have also shown that mNGS can significantly improve the treatment success rate of SHA [7, 33]. Therefore, mNGS could be a promising diagnostic tool for chronic destructive SHA.

Treatment of chronic destructive SHA

Conservative treatment

For acute SHA, broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics should be used at the beginning of treatment. After culture results are obtained, antibiotics that target the causative organism should be administered [3, 16, 19, 22, 34,35,36]. However, due to the persistent nature of chronic destructive SHA, it is usually difficult to kill pathogenic bacteria with antibiotic therapy alone. Therefore, for chronic destructive SHA, conservative treatment is a highly ineffective option and is indicated only for patients who cannot tolerate surgery.

In recent years, the literature has indicated that altering the release of platelets may be achieved by increasing the levels of inflammatory cytokines and/or chemokines and reducing the levels of anti-inflammatory cytokines. Such platelet alterations could confer a protective effect against bone and joint infections [37]. Additionally, it has been reported that ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid-normal saline irrigation with or without antibiotics is effective at eradicating S. aureus biofilm-associated infections both ex vivo and in vivo [38]. Vancomycin has been proposed as an infection prophylaxis drug for arthroplasty. To keep the administration period as short as possible, an initial target of 100% minimal inhibitory concentration (T > MIC) may be considered to ensure that the most resistant bacterial subpopulation is targeted. Some studies have shown that the time greater than the minimum inhibitory concentration (T > MIC) of vancomycin is greater than that of meropenem across all investigated compartments. Accordingly, treatment should be guided by local susceptibility patterns. This suggests that a more aggressive dosing approach than just choosing a broad-spectrum combination to achieve longer T > MIC in all the exposed tissues, including the application of local antibiotics, may be considered to lower the risk of acquiring an infection after arthroplasty [39]. These findings contribute to the further exploration of conservative treatment methods for chronic destructive SHA. However, these are all still in the realm of basic research.

Debridement

Arthroscopic debridement

Previous studies have shown that acute SHA can be treated by either arthroscopic debridement or open debridement [5]. A systematic evaluation of arthroscopic debridement for the treatment of SHA by Darren de et al., revealed significant improvements in pain and joint function after the procedure [40]. Multiple studies have shown that arthroscopic debridement is a safe and effective method for treating SHAs [34, 35, 41]. Additionally, studies have shown that patients who undergo arthroscopic debridement for SA experience fewer surgical procedures, shorter hospital stays, lower visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores and greater mobility than those who undergo open debridement [42, 43]. However, D’Angelo’s study [44] showed that arthroscopic debridement was not superior to open arthroplasty in the treatment of SHA. Lee et al. [34] also noted that although the infection recurrence rate with arthroscopic debridement for SA is lower than that with conservative treatment, multiple surgeries are often required to completely eradicate the infection. Stutz et al. [45] suggested that the effectiveness of arthroscopic debridement for treating SA is correlated with the stage of infection. In the initial stages of infection (acute phase), arthroscopic debridement results in better treatment outcomes and a better prognosis. Given the stubbornness and refractoriness of pathogens in chronic destructive SHA, arthroscopic debridement may not be suitable for eradicating infection in this disease [34]. Patients with articular cartilage and bone destruction or osteomyelitis who undergo arthroscopy or open debridement have a higher failure rate and may develop chronic SHA [16]. In conclusion, it is a viable, minimally invasive solution for patients with acute, undamaged SHA, but it is not effective in the treatment of chronic destructive SHA.

Open debridement

Most of the literature indicates that there is no significant difference in efficacy between arthroscopic debridement and open debridement for treating SA [4, 8]. However, some researchers still believe that compared with arthroscopic debridement, open debridement is more thorough. Studies have shown that open debridement can adequately drain SHAs and improve the functional outcome of joints [19, 46]. A study comparing arthroscopic debridement and open debridement revealed a greater failure rate of arthroscopic debridement when MRSA was the pathogenic factor, suggesting that open debridement should be considered if MRSA infection is suspected. Moreover, in cases where the joint surface is severely damaged, open debridement should also be performed to prepare for future arthroplasty or joint fusion [43].

However, similar to arthroscopic debridement, open debridement has been mainly applied to acute SHA in the past, with questionable efficacy in the treatment of chronic destructive SHA and limited reports in the literature. Moreover, open debridement is significantly associated with potential complications such as femoral head necrosis and dislocation [19, 34, 35, 46]. Therefore, the current mainstream view on treatment for chronic destructive SHAs still favours arthroplasty rather than debridement.

Debridement + Girdlestone head and neck dissection

Girdlestone first described an approach in which arthroplasty was performed via complete resection of the proximal femur and debridement of the surrounding tissue. The approach achieved remarkable results in eradicating infection. However, the patient is immobile after the operation, leading to an increased risk of venous thrombosis in the lower extremities and possible sequelae such as limb shortening and joint contractures [47]. Therefore, this surgical method has been gradually eliminated and replaced by total hip arthroplasty (THA) after Girdlestone head and neck resection to improve hip function.

Debridement + Girdlestone femoral head and neck resection + two-stage arthroplasty

Prior to the widespread use of spacers, the debridement + Girdlestone femoral head and neck resection + two-stage arthroplasty approach was the main surgical option for the treatment of SHAs. Chen et al. demonstrated that this surgical approach achieved satisfactory infection and eradication rates, but the complication rate was still unsatisfactory [20]. Several studies have shown that this option carries the risk of postoperative complications such as prosthesis dislocation, heterotopic ossification, haematoma and rotor nonunion [47, 48]. In addition, although the procedure reduces the patient's bed rest to approximately 3 months, there is still a risk of sequelae such as venous thrombosis of the lower extremities, limb shortening and joint contracture. Consequently, with the widespread use of the two-stage revision approach in PJI, this procedure has been gradually phased out.

One-stage spacer therapy + two-stage arthroplasty

It has been documented that there is a ten-fold increased risk of PJI in patients with a history of septic arthritis who undergo THA compared with those who undergo THA for OA, with a ten-year cumulative incidence of 7%. The risk of any infection notably decreased as the time interval between the diagnosis of septic arthritis and THA increased [49]. Therefore, staged treatment with arthroplasty is critical for treating SA.

For PJI, the common surgical protocol is debridement + spacer implantation + two-stage total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Studies have shown that this protocol has achieved good efficacy in the treatment of PJI [50]. Considering the similarities between SA and PJI in terms of aetiology, diagnosis and treatment, the use of debridement + spacer implantation + two-stage THA in the treatment of chronic destructive SHA can also achieve a good prognosis. The use of a spacer avoids the risk of venous thrombosis and joint contracture in patients after Girdlestone femoral head and neck resection. In addition, two-stage arthroplasty ensures that the prosthesis is implanted in an infection-controlled state, thus reducing the risk of postoperative infection.

Several studies have shown that one-stage spacer implantation + two-stage arthroplasty has a high success rate in the treatment of SA (Table 2). The results of Sultan et al. [14] showed that this regimen overcame the high risk of thrombosis and sequelae after Girdlestone femoral head and neck resection and demonstrated the unique superiority of antibiotic-containing spacers. Bochatey et al. [51] showed that this regimen is suitable not only for quiescent SHAs but also for active infections. A study by Li et al. [52] showed that spacer implantation is uniquely superior for maintaining lower limb length and hip function.

Table 2 Studies of one-stage spacer therapy + two-stage arthroplasty for SA
Full size table

PJI is a catastrophic complication after two-stage joint arthroplasty and there are multiple risk factors for the development of PJI after two-stage arthroplasty for SA, such as male sex and diabetes [54]. Physicians must clarify the risk factors through preoperative examination and discussion to minimise such risk factors. Due to the low detection rate of routine microbiological cultures, to clarify the type of microorganisms for targeted drug therapy, we recommend utilising mNGS for preoperative and intraoperative pathogen cultures to ensure complete control of infections prior to two-stage arthroplasty to reduce the risk of PJI.

One-stage arthroplasty

While it is true that one-stage spacer implantation + two-stage arthroplasty has shown excellent results, there are still studies that indicate a high rate of complications after two-stage arthroplasty, mainly PJI. Tan et al. reported that the rate of postoperative PJI was 13.3% after two-stage arthroplasty following previous SA [54]. A study by Russo et al. showed that the complication rate after one-stage spacer implantation + two-stage arthroplasty was 20.2% [11].

The use of spacers increases the risk of complications such as spacer dislocation and spacer rupture. The results of a study by Anagnostakos et al. [15] showed that the rate of spacer-specific complications after two-stage arthroplasty was 23%, while the rate of spacer-nonspecific complications (mainly sinus tracts) was 50%. Spacer complications not only have a significant impact on postoperative recovery but also increase the risk of infection. Two-stage arthroplasty also suffers from the risks of multiple operations, high medical costs, long rehabilitation and antibiotic use time. Therefore, there is still a need to improve current surgical methods to further improve patient prognosis.

With improved pathogenetic testing and surgical techniques, the use of debridement in conjunction with one-stage arthroplasty for chronic PJI can achieve results similar to those of two-stage revision [57]. Compared with two-stage arthroplasty, one-stage arthroplasty has the advantages of a simpler surgical procedure, shorter antibiotic use, shorter hospitalisation and lower relative cost of treatment. Furthermore, the outcomes of one-stage arthroplasty are comparable to those of two-stage arthroplasty. Given that the current difficulty in the treatment of SHA lies in the clarification and eradication of causative organisms, it has been suggested that one-stage arthroplasty of SHAs is possible with clarification of the causative organism. Some studies have shown that one-stage arthroplasty has been successfully used for quiescent SHAs [22]. In addition, the findings of Wei et al. [52] suggest that delaying arthroplasty does not reduce the risk of PJI and that one-stage arthroplasty does not result in a greater rate of infection, providing theoretical support for the use of one-stage arthroplasty for chronic destructive SA.

Although there are few clinical studies, there are still studies that have shown satisfactory results with one-stage arthroplasty (Table 3). Papanna et al. [22] showed that one-stage arthroplasty had similar results in patients with SA and degenerative osteoarthritis (OA) compared to two-stage arthroplasty. In addition, one-stage arthroplasty also reduced the rate of postoperative complications. The study by Sultan et al. [14] included 8 patients who underwent one-stage hip arthroplasty, and the treatment success rate was 100%. A study by Tan et al. [53] showed that there was no significant difference in the efficacy or PJI rate between patients who underwent one-stage TJA and those who underwent two-stage TJA. Zhang et al. [7] compared the efficacy and PJI rate of pathogen + debridement + antibiotics + single-stage replacement (PDASR) versus two-stage arthroplasty for chronic destructive SHA. The results showed that there was no case of recurrence of infection in either group and there was no significant difference in the rates of readmission, reinfection, revision, dislocation, aseptic loosening, complications or HHS between the two groups. In addition, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalisation time and cost were significantly lower in the PDASR group compared to the two-stage arthroplasty group.

Table 3 Relevant studies of one-stage arthroplasty for SA
Full size table

In a preliminary study, Zhang et al. [7] proposed a PDASR treatment plan, which is different from the common one-stage arthroplasty plan by focusing more on the identification of pathogens and sensitive drug treatment. Pus, synovial membrane or granulation tissue is obtained from the joint cavity before and during surgery to identify the pathogen. Sensitive antibiotics are used to fight infection to improve the success rate of subsequent surgery. In addition, the PDASR program pays extra attention to asepsis during debridement and arthroplasty. The risk of infection is minimised by the use of a surgical membrane, double gloves, changes in gowns and surgical instruments and copious irrigation. These practices, which are different from those of normal one-stage arthroplasty, help to minimise the occurrence of postoperative complications such as infections.

Despite the advantages of a simple surgical procedure, short duration of antibiotics and low cost of treatment, current treatment guidelines still consider active infection to be a relative contraindication to one-stage arthroplasty. Therefore, the indications for one-stage arthroplasty need to be strictly adhered to when selecting a regimen: the patient has a good nutritional status (normal haemoglobin and albumin levels), no history of immune dysfunction or previous multiple surgeries, a short duration of symptoms (< 12 weeks) and available microbiological data. There is a need for improved mNGS assays to further improve pathogen detection and reduce infection recurrence. With the general trend of increasing drug resistance in pathogenic bacteria, we also need to look for antibiotics with stronger anti-infective effects. It has been suggested in the literature that halicin (SU3327) remains active against Staphylococcus aureus in biofilms grown on orthopaedically relevant substrates [58]. Therefore, further animal model tests should be conducted to prove its effect.

C.Hamad et al. [59] argued that for a thorough treatment of PJI, surgical debridement must be comprehensive, and methods to visualise the microbiota must be developed to allow the removal of microscopic extensions. The advantages and limitations of various surgical treatments for SHA have been summarized in Table 4. The simultaneous development and use of adjunctive therapies beyond antimicrobial agents are necessary to achieve complete microbial eradication. This aligns with the concept of PDASR that we follow for the treatment of chronic destructive SHA. Additionally, Welling et al. [60] proposed that topical application of the hybrid bacterial tracer 99mTc-UBI29-41-Cy5 allows bacterial visualisation, therapy guidance and quantification of debridement effectiveness on femoral implants. These types of techniques may help us evaluate debridement and implantation outcomes in PDASR scenarios, reducing the probability of reinfection. Ji et al. [61] suggested that single-stage revision with intra-articular antibiotic infusion can provide high antibiotic concentrations in synovial fluid, thereby overcoming the reduced vascular supply and biofilm formation, which may be a viable option for treating PJI after multiple failed surgeries for reinfection. This study also provides important guidance for the use of antibiotics in one-stage arthroplasty for chronic destructive SHA.

Table 4 Advantages and limitations of various surgical treatments for SHA
Full size table

Neufeld and E. F. Liechti et al. [62] independently suggested that the host and limb status according to the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) staging system were not associated with subsequent infection-related failure in PJI patients. Whether these factors are risk factors for treatment failure in chronic destructive SHA remains unclear. However, more clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Other postoperative complications are also important concerns. Kvarda et al. [63] proposed that patients who underwent revision surgery for PJI were at greater risk of perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) and death than those who underwent aseptic arthroplasty surgery. As an infectious disease, SHA may also pose such risks. Therefore, screening for PMI and treatment in specialised multidisciplinary units should be considered in SHA.

It has been suggested that adequate treatment of bone and joint infection (BJI) requires the consideration of multiple factors. Case discussion by a multidisciplinary team may enhance the management and study of patients with BJI and may reduce the rate of antimicrobial resistance [64]. A flowchart like Fig. 1 that sorts out disease diagnosis and treatment approaches can help us to further enhance the management of SHA.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Clinical diagnosis and treatment of SHA

Full size image

Currently, most of the literature on one-stage arthroplasty for SHA consists of case‒control studies and retrospective cohort studies rather than randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The quality of the literature is poor, thus providing limited clinical evidence for us. In the case of one-stage arthroplasty for chronic destructive SHA, there is also a need for multicentre studies with better homogeneity, larger sample sizes and longer follow-up, with the joint efforts of multidisciplinary teams, to offer the possibility of applying this method in the clinic.

Conclusion

In summary, there is still no consensus on the definition, diagnosis, or treatment of chronic destructive septic hip arthritis. Currently, one-stage spacer therapy + two-stage arthroplasty is considered the standard surgical treatment, with high success rates and low reinfection rates. However, this approach also has disadvantages, including a high incidence of interval spacer-related complications, multiple surgeries, high medical costs, long recovery times and prolonged antibiotic use. One-stage arthroplasty has emerged as a new surgical treatment option in recent years, offering advantages such as a simpler surgical procedure, shorter antibiotic use and lower treatment costs than two-stage arthroplasty. However, more high-quality research is needed to provide the latest evidence supporting the safety and feasibility of this treatment option. Regardless of the surgical approach adopted, the detection of pathogenic microorganisms remains paramount in the treatment of chronic destructive SHA. Novel molecular detection methods such as mNGS can assist traditional cultures by accurately identifying the infecting microorganisms, thereby aiding in disease treatment.

Data availability

Not required.

Abbreviations

SHA:

Septic hip arthritis

SA:

Septic arthritis

PJI:

Periprosthetic joint infection

CRP:

C-reactive protein

ESR:

Erythrocyte sedimentation rate

PMN:

Polymorphonuclear leukocyte percentage

NLR:

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio

SF-NLR:

Synovial fluid NLR

MRI:

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

NGS:

Next-generation sequencing

mNGS:

Metagenomic next-generation sequencing

MIC:

Minimal inhibitory concentration

VAS:

Visual analogue scale

MRSA:

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

THA:

Total hip arthroplasty

TJA:

Total joint arthroplasty

OA:

Osteoarthritis

PDASR:

Pathogen + debridement + antibiotics + single-stage replacement

MSIS:

Musculoskeletal Infection Society

PMI:

Perioperative myocardial injury

BJI:

Bone and joint infection

RCT:

Randomised controlled trial

References

  1. Clement RGE, Hall AC, Wong SJ, Howie SEM, Simpson AHRW. Septic arthritis in an in vivo murine model induced by Staphylococcus aureus : a comparison between actions of the haemolysin toxin and the effects of the host immune response. Bone Joint Res. 2022;11(9):669–78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Flores-Robles BJ, Palop MJ, Sanchinel AA, Andrus RF, Vicente AR, Pérez MI, Malpartida ME, Giráldez CR, Argumanez CM, Alcázar LF, Sánchez JL, Tundidor HG, Campos EJ, Sanz Sanz J, Barbadillo Mateos C, Zaragoza CI, Mendoza JM. Medical versus surgical approach to initial treatment in septic arthritis: a single Spanish center’s 8-year experience. J Clin Rheumatol. 2019;25(1):4–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Huang T, Huang K, Lee P, Tai C, Hsieh P. Encouraging outcomes of staged, uncemented arthroplasty with short-term antibiotic therapy for treatment of recalcitrant septic arthritis of the native hip. J Trauma. 2010;68(4):965–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ross JJ. Septic arthritis of native joints. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2017;31(2):203–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Davis CM, Zamora RA. Surgical options and approaches for septic arthritis of the native hip and knee joint. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(3S):S14–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Diwanji SR, Kong IK, Park YH, Cho SG, Song EK, Yoon TR. Two-stage reconstruction of infected hip joints. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(5):656–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang C, Fang X, Huang Z, Bai G, Zhang Z, Yang Y, Zhang Z, Li W, Zhang W. Surgical management for chronic destructive septic hip arthritis: debridement, antibiotics, and single-stage replacement is as effective as two-stage arthroplasty. Orthop Surg. 2022;14(6):1175–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Hassan AS, Rao A, Manadan AM, Block JA. peripheral bacterial septic arthritis: review of diagnosis and management. J Clin Rheumatol. 2017;23(8):435–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Varady NH, Schwab P, Kheir MM, Dilley JE, Bedair H, Chen AF. Synovial fluid and serum neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio: novel biomarkers for the diagnosis and prognosis of native septic arthritis in adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2022;104(17):1516–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lenski M, Scherer MA. Diagnostic potential of inflammatory markers in septic arthritis and periprosthetic joint infections: a clinical study with 719 patients. Infect Dis (Lond). 2015;47(6):399–409.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Russo A, Cavagnaro L, Chiarlone F, Clemente A, Romagnoli S, Burastero G. Clinical outcomes and survivorship of two-stage total hip or knee arthroplasty in septic arthritis: a retrospective analysis with a minimum five-year follow-up. Int Orthop. 2021;45(7):1683–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kunze KN, Sadauskas AJ, Kernzer B, Levine BR. Two-stage primary arthroplasty of native hips and knees that had previously failed treatment for septic arthritis: a single-center experience. Arthroplast Today. 2020;6(3):431–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Xu C, Kuo F, Kheir M, Li X, Chai W, Chen J. Outcomes and predictors of treatment failure following two-stage total joint arthroplasty with articulating spacers for evolutive septic arthritis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):272.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Sultan AA, Mahmood B, Samuel LT, George J, Faour M, Pelt CE, Anderson MB, Klika AK, Higuera CA. Patients with a history of treated septic arthritis are at high risk of periprosthetic joint infection after total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019;477(7):1605–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Anagnostakos K, Duchow L, Koch K. Two-stage protocol and spacer implantation in the treatment of destructive septic arthritis of the hip joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136(7):899–906.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fleck EE, Spangehl MJ, Rapuri VR, Beauchamp CP. An articulating antibiotic spacer controls infection and improves pain and function in a degenerative septic hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(11):3055–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Romano CL, Romano D, Meani E, Logoluso N, Drago L. Two-stage revision surgery with preformed spacers and cementless implants for septic hip arthritis: a prospective, non-randomized cohort study. BMC Infect Dis. 2011;11:129.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Bauer T, Lacoste S, Lhotellier L, Mamoudy P, Lortat-Jacob A, Hardy P. Arthroplasty following a septic arthritis history: a 53 cases series. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2010;96(8):840–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kelm J, Schmitt E, Anagnostakos K. Vacuum-assisted closure in the treatment of early hip joint infections. Int J Med Sci. 2009;6(5):241–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen C, Wang J, Juhn R. Total hip arthroplasty for primary septic arthritis of the hip in adults. Int Orthop. 2008;32(5):573–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wei J, Kuo F, Wang J, Ko J, Lee MS, Wu C. outcome and predictors of septic failure following total joint arthroplasty for prior septic arthritis of hip and knee joint. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37(7):1375–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Papanna MC, Chebbout R, Buckley S, Stockley I, Hamer A. Infection and failure rates following total hip arthroplasty for septic arthritis: a case-controlled study. Hip Int. 2018;28(1):63–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sigmund IK, Yeghiazaryan L, Luger M, Windhager R, Sulzbacher I, McNally MA. Three to six tissue specimens for histopathological analysis are most accurate for diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J. 2023;105-B(2):158–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gu W, Miller S, Chiu CY. Clinical metagenomic next-generation sequencing for pathogen detection. Annu Rev Pathol. 2019;14:319–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mouraviev V, McDonald M. An implementation of next generation sequencing for prevention and diagnosis of urinary tract infection in urology. Can J Urol. 2018;25(3):9349–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Huang C, Ding H, Lin Y, Zhang Z, Fang X, Chen Y, Chen Y, Zhang C, Li W, Zhang W, Huang Z. Diagnosis of coxiella burnetii prosthetic joint infection using mNGS and ptNGS: a case report and literature review. Orthop Surg. 2023;15(1):371–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cai Y, Ding H, Chen X, Chen Y, Huang C, Zhang C, Huang Z, Huang Y, Li W, Zhang W, Fang X. Optimization and standardization of mNGS-based procedures for the diagnosis of Mycoplasma periprosthetic joint infection: a novel diagnostic strategy for rare bacterial periprosthetic joint infection. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023;13:1089919.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Huang C, Huang Y, Wang Z, Lin Y, Li Y, Chen Y, Chen X, Zhang C, Li W, Zhang W, Fang X, Huang Z. Multiplex PCR-based next generation sequencing as a novel, targeted and accurate molecular approach for periprosthetic joint infection diagnosis. Front Microbiol. 2023;14:1181348.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang C, Lin Y, Huang C, Huang Z, Fang X, Bai G, Zhang Z, Li W, Zhang W. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing assists the diagnosis treatment of fungal osteoarticular infections. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:1072539.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Fang X, Cai Y, Chen X, Huang C, Lin Y, Huang Z, Zhang C, Huang Y, Li W, Zhang W. The role of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in the pathogen detection of invasive osteoarticular infection. Int J Infect Dis. 2022;122:996–1001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Huang Z, Li W, Lee G, Fang X, Xing L, Yang B, Lin J, Zhang W. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing of synovial fluid demonstrates high accuracy in prosthetic joint infection diagnostics: mNGS for diagnosing PJI. Bone Joint Res. 2020;9(7):440–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Huang Z, Zhang Z, Yang B, Li W, Zhang C, Fang X, Zhang C, Zhang W, Lin J. Pathogenic detection by metagenomic next-generation sequencing in osteoarticular infections. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020;10:471.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Wu J, Lu AD, Zhang LP, Zuo YX, Jia YP. Study of clinical outcome and prognosis in pediatric core binding factor-acute myeloid leukemia. Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2019;40(1):52–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lee Y, Park K, Ha Y, Koo K. Arthroscopic treatment for acute septic arthritis of the hip joint in adults. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(4):942–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Nusem I, Jabur MKA, Playford EG. Arthroscopic treatment of septic arthritis of the hip. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(8):902.e1–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cho YJ, Patel D, Chun YS, Shin WJ, Rhyu KH. Novel antibiotic-loaded cement femoral head spacer for the treatment of advanced pyogenic arthritis in adult Hip. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(6):1899–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gao T, Lin J, Wei H, Bao B, Zhu H, Zheng X. Platelets mediate trained immunity against bone and joint infections in a mouse model. Bone Joint Res. 2022;11(2):73–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Lin J, Suo J, Bao B, Wei H, Gao T, Zhu H, Zheng X. Efficacy of EDTA-NS irrigation in eradicating Staphylococcus aureus biofilm-associated infection. Bone Joint Res. 2024;13(1):40–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Vittrup SO, Hanberg P, Knudsen MB, Tostesen SK, Kipp JO, Hansen J, Jorgensen NP, Stilling M, Bue M. Tibial bone and soft-tissue concentrations following combination therapy with vancomycin and meropenem - evaluated by microdialysis in a porcine model : should patients with open fractures have higher doses of antibiotics? Bone Joint Res. 2022;11(2):112–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. de SA D, Cargnelli S, Catapano M, Peterson D, Simunovic N, Larson CM, Ayeni OR. Efficacy of hip arthroscopy for the management of septic arthritis: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(7):1358–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Shukla A, Beniwal SK, Sinha S. Outcome of arthroscopic drainage and debridement with continuous suction irrigation technique in acute septic arthritis. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2014;5(1):1–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Sammer DM, Shin AY. Comparison of arthroscopic and open treatment of septic arthritis of the wrist. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(6):1387–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Jaffe D, Costales T, Greenwell P, Christian M, Henn RFR III. Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus infection is a risk factor for unplanned return to the operating room in the surgical treatment of a septic knee. J Knee Surg. 2017;30(9):872–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. D’Angelo F, Monestier L, Zagra L. Active septic arthritis of the hip in adults: what’s new in the treatment? A systematic review. EFORT Open Rev. 2021;6(3):164–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Stutz G, Kuster MS, Kleinstuck F, Gachter A. Arthroscopic management of septic arthritis: stages of infection and results. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2000;8(5):270–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ohtsuru T, Murata Y, Morita Y, Sakurai H, Kato Y. Risk assessment and usefulness of musculocutaneous flap transposition for recurrent septic arthritis of the hip in adults. Hip Int. 2016;26(5):503–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Charlton WPH, Hozack WJ, Teloken MA, Rao R, Bissett GA. Complications associated with reimplantation after girdlestone arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;407:119–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hipfl C, Karczewski D, Oronowicz J, Pumberger M, Perka C, Hardt S. Total hip arthroplasty for destructive septic arthritis of the hip using a two-stage protocol without spacer placement. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023;143(1):19–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Bettencourt JW, Wyles CC, Osmon DR, Hanssen AD, Berry DJ, Abdel MP. Outcomes of primary total hip arthroplasty following septic arthritis of the hip: a case-control study. Bone Joint J. 2022;104-B(2):227–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Burastero G, Alessio-Mazzola M, Cavagnaro L, Chiarlone F, Carrega G, Capello AG, Lovisolo S, Felli L. Conservative two-stage revision with primary components of infected total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of survival, clinical and radiographic outcomes. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0239981.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Bochatey E, Del Sel H, Tillet F, Lopreite F. Arthroplasty as a treatment for acute and quiescent septic arthritis in native hips. Acta Ortop Mex. 2021;35(1):11–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Li Z, Wei C, Li X, Yao M, Li H. Two-stage total hip arthroplasty for primary advanced septic arthritis of the hip in adults. Biomed Res Int. 2022;2022:8387465.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Tan TL, Xu C, Kuo FC, Ghanem E, George J, Shohat N, Chen JY, Lee MS, Higuera C, Parvizi J. When total joint arthroplasty after septic arthritis can be safely performed. JB JS Open Access. 2021;6(2):e20.00146.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Tan T, Xu C, Kuo F, Ghanem E, Higuera C, Parvizi J. Risk factors for failure and optimal treatment of total joint arthroplasty for septic arthritis. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36(3):892–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Luo Y, Yang Z, Yeersheng R, Li D, Kang P. Clinical outcomes and quality of life after total hip arthroplasty in adult patients with a history of infection of the hip in childhood: a mid-term follow-up study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Kao F, Hsu Y, Liu P, Tu Y, Jou I. High 2-year mortality and recurrent infection rates after surgical treatment for primary septic arthritis of the hip in adult patients: an observational study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(32):e16765.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Matar HE, Bloch BV, Snape SE, James PJ. Outcomes of single- and two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic joint infection: long-term outcomes of changing clinical practice in a specialist centre. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(8):1373–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Higashihira S, Simpson SJ, Morita A, Suryavanshi JR, Arnold CJ, Natoli RM, Greenfield EM. Halicin remains active against Staphylococcus aureus in biofilms grown on orthopaedically relevant substrates. Bone Joint Res. 2024;13(3):101–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Hamad C, Chowdhry M, Sindeldecker D, Bernthal NM, Stoodley P, McPherson EJ. Adaptive antimicrobial resistance, a description of microbial variants, and their relevance to periprosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J. 2022;104-B(5):575–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Welling MM, Warbroek K, Khurshid C, van Oosterom MN, Rietbergen DDD, de Boer MGJ, Nelissen RGHH, van Leeuwen FWB, Pijls BG, Buckle T. A radio- and fluorescently labelled tracer for imaging and quantification of bacterial infection on orthopaedic prostheses : a proof of principle study. Bone Joint Res. 2023;12(1):72–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Ji B, Li G, Zhang X, Xu B, Wang Y, Chen Y, Cao L. Effective single-stage revision using intra-articular antibiotic infusion after multiple failed surgery for periprosthetic joint infection : a mean seven years’ follow-up. Bone Joint J. 2022;104-B(7):867–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Neufeld ME, Liechti EF, Soto F, Linke P, Busch SM, Gehrke T, Citak M. High revision rates following repeat septic revision after failed one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection in total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2022;104-B(3):386–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Kvarda P, Puelacher C, Clauss M, Kuehl R, Gerhard H, Mueller C, Morgenstern M. Perioperative myocardial injury and mortality after revision surgery for orthopaedic device-related infection. Bone Joint J. 2022;104-B(6):696–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Walter N, Rupp M, Baertl S, Alt V. The role of multidisciplinary teams in musculoskeletal infection. Bone Joint Res. 2022;11(1):6–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

This work was supported by 1) Joint Funds for the Innovation of Science and Technology, Fujian province (2023Y9092); 2) University-Industry Research Cooperation Project of Science and Technology, Fujian province (No.2022Y4003); 3) The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University Excellent Talent Program (YXRQN-ZCF2023); 4) The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University Excellent Talent Program (YJCRC-B-ZWM2024).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350005, China

    Zhishuo Zhang, Zida Huang, Xinyu Fang, Guochang Bai, Wenbo Li, Wenming Zhang & Chaofan Zhang

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National Regional Medical Center, Binhai Campus of the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350212, China

    Zhishuo Zhang, Zida Huang, Xinyu Fang, Guochang Bai, Wenbo Li, Wenming Zhang & Chaofan Zhang

  3. Fujian Provincial Institute of Orthopedics, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350005, China

    Zhishuo Zhang, Zida Huang, Xinyu Fang, Guochang Bai, Wenbo Li, Wenming Zhang & Chaofan Zhang

  4. Fujian Orthopaedic Bone and Joint Disease and Sports Rehabilitation Clinical Medical Research Center, Fuzhou, 350005, China

    Zhishuo Zhang, Zida Huang, Xinyu Fang, Guochang Bai, Wenbo Li, Wenming Zhang & Chaofan Zhang

Authors
  1. Zhishuo Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zida Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xinyu Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guochang Bai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wenbo Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wenming Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chaofan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Z.Z.: Writing and Data collection; C.Z. and W.Z.: Review and Supervision. H.Z., F.X., B.G. and L.W.: Data collection. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Wenming Zhang or Chaofan Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not required.

Consent for publication

Not required.

Competing interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Z., Huang, Z., Fang, X. et al. Diagnosis and surgical treatment of chronic destructive septic hip arthritis. Arthroplasty 7, 19 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s42836-025-00305-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s42836-025-00305-2

Keywords

Arthroplasty

ISSN: 2524-7948

Contact us