Objective To study surgical technique and choice of prosthesis in the second stage revision with infections of artificial hip replacement. Methods From January 1999 to December 2007, 32 patients with infections after unilateral hip replacement underwent the second stage revision, including 19 males and 13 females, with a mean age of 56 years (32-80 years). Bone defect in acetabular side by Paprosky classification were 13 cases(type Ⅰ), 9 cases(Ⅱ A), 5 cases(Ⅱ C), 1 cases(ⅢA), 4 cases(Ⅲ B). Cemeritless prosthesis was applied in 22 cases with type Ⅰ-Ⅱ A bone defect. Cemented prosthesis was applied in 10 cases with type Ⅱ C-Ⅲ B bone defect followed by acetabular reconstruction by allograft, mesh and cage or ring. Bone defect in femoral side by Paprosky classification were 11 cases(Ⅰ), 4 cases(Ⅱ A), 1 case (Ⅱ B), 5 cases(Ⅱ C), 6 cases(Ⅲ A), 3 cases(Ⅲ B), 2 cases(Ⅲ C). Cemented prosthesis was applied in 8 cases with type Ⅱ C (5 cases) and Ⅲ B(3 cases) bone defect. Cementless prosthesis was applied in the other cases, including proximal fixation(5 cases with type Ⅰ ), extensive prouscoating(6 cases with Ⅰ, 4 cases with Ⅱ A, 1 case with Ⅱ B) and distal fixation (6 cases with Ⅲ A, 2 cases with Ⅲ C). Results All cases were followed up i-10 years. Among them, 2 patients suffered recurrent infections, and underwent debridement and conservative treatment, with sinus tract at final follow-up. Harris score were 65 and 78, respectively. The other 30 cases got satisfactory results. Harris score was increased from average 48 (31-78) preoperatively to 85 (80-95) postoperatively. At final follow-up, 30 prosthesis had no subsidence, migration and loosening on X-ray images. Conclusion The success rate of two stage revision with infections of artificial hip replacement is satisfactory. The key point of revision is to choose proper prosthesis according to bone defect type after the infection is under better control. Key words: Arthroplasty,replacement,hip; Infection; Hip prosthesis; Reoperation