Discussion
First described in 1774, the indications for performing disarticulation of the hip have come full circle.7 Rarely used in the civilian sector with high mortality during the 18th and 19th centuries, it was used most often by the military during this period to manage catastrophic injury or secondary infection.7 Over the course of the 20th century, HD became widely used for oncological resections, as the consensus of the time was that the entire femur needed to be removed for cancer-free outcome.8 As limb-sparing operation has become the gold standard, HD is once again being used primarily in the setting of severe trauma or infection.6 Regardless of source, operative management of the infected hip requires timely and complete debridement of necrotic tissue to stem the tide of sepsis. Common infectious sources include decubitus ulcers, orthopedic prosthesis, underlying osteomyelitis, ischemic limbs, failed revascularization or previous amputation sites.1 Debridement and disarticulation for proper source control should follow expeditiously; emergency operations carry an increased risk of mortality.2 A recent case study found mortality was higher in disarticulations with trauma (66.7%) versus tumorous (60%) diagnoses.9
Similarly, the risk of postoperative infection, flap necrosis and wound dehiscence increases with emergency operation. Other known risk factors include peripheral vascular disease and previous above-knee amputation.2 The most significant complication is flap loss, which requires complex reconstruction for coverage.
Therefore, proper disarticulations for infection need to address these two operative and postoperative issues: damage control debridement with creation of sufficient flap size and thorough postoperative wound care. Proper source control is a fundamental tenet of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign.10 A damage control approach is a validated method of timely source control in the abdomen, as well as the extremities.4 11 12 It allows for an abbreviated operative time and continued postoperative resuscitation. Hypotension, inadequate arterial inflow, and edema after large-volume resuscitation may result in delayed demarcation of ischemia, and flap viability should be assessed over time prior before definitive closure.
Our creation of a large medial flap allowed for adequate soft tissue coverage with easy dissection. Previous studies found no significant difference in postoperative wound complications between wounds closed primarily or left open after HD.2 Wound complications can arise more frequently in patients experiencing hypothermia, which is another factor in favor of DCHD.13 In addition to providing coverage, another positive mechanism behind our choice of NPWT is the increase in blood flow and granulation tissue and elimination of edema and exudate.14 15
Our series had an average hospital stay of 54.22 days, and excluding the patient who also had cancer and an extended stay resulted in an average stay of only 33.5 days for the rest of the patients. This is comparable to the series by Zalavras et al of 42 days.1 Functional recovery after HD is a difficult scenario to manage as loss of hip means loss of fulcrum, which makes basic wheelchair transfer difficult. However, the majority of our patients were able to eventually self-transfer to a wheelchair, which we attribute to a larger flap that still allows some support for sitting for the patient.
A multidisciplinary approach with surgical, wound care and rehabilitation services is paramount for best management. At our institution, the burn service is often consulted for management of sacral decubitus ulcers. Proper wound care must attempt to address the infectious source; a recent article demonstrated a 63% reinfection rate of decubitus ulcers in spinal cord injured patients.16 Postoperatively, the patients receive care in the intensive care unit with experienced nurses to perform dressing changes. The loss of fulcrum at the hip increases energy expenditure after HD with intense need for physical therapy.17 The major limitation of our article is the small sample size; however, due to the low incidence of severe trauma or devastating infection, it is difficult to accrue large numbers of this patient population in a single center. DCHD is a new two-stage technique which may offer improved morbidity and decreased mortality; however, further prospective observation of this approach is needed.
The damage control approach to HD for the septic joint affords improved outcomes compared with traditional methods. The two stages afford both removal of the septic focus and time for stabilization of the patient and resolution of edema in the myocutaneous flap. NPWT, by reducing the bacterial load and edema, may have contributed to the improved morbidity. DCHD is a useful tool in the surgeon’s armamentarium when faced with the overwhelmingly infected hip joint or non-viable extremity.