Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review

被引:35
|
作者
George, D. A. [1 ]
Logoluso, N. [2 ]
Castellini, G. [3 ,4 ]
Gianola, S. [4 ,5 ]
Scarponi, S. [2 ]
Haddad, F. S. [1 ]
Drago, L. [4 ,6 ]
Romano, C. L. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Coll London Hosp, Dept Trauma & Orthopaed Surg, London, England
[2] Orthopaed Res Inst Galeazzi, Ctr Reconstruct Surg & Osteoarticular Infect, Milan, Italy
[3] Univ Milan, Dept Biomed Sci Hlth, Milan, Italy
[4] IRCCS, Galeazzi Orthopaed Inst, Clin Epidemiol Unit, Milan, Italy
[5] Univ Milano Bicocca, Sch Med & Surg, Ctr Biostat Clin Epidemiol, Monza, Italy
[6] IRCCS, Clin Chem & Microbiol Lab, Galeazzi Inst, Milan, Italy
来源
BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES | 2016年 / 16卷
关键词
Infection; Periprosthetic hip infections; Exchange arthroplasty; Single-stage; Two-stage; Cemented; Cementless; PROSTHETIC JOINT INFECTION; REVISION ARTHROPLASTY; DEEP INFECTION; RESECTION ARTHROPLASTY; UNCEMENTED REVISION; ANTIBIOTIC-THERAPY; SURGICAL-TREATMENT; ORAL ANTIBIOTICS; ERADICATION RATE; SUBACUTE SEPSIS;
D O I
10.1186/s12879-016-1869-4
中图分类号
R51 [传染病];
学科分类号
100401 ;
摘要
Background: The best surgical modality for treating chronic periprosthetic hip infections remains controversial, with a lack of randomised controlled studies. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the infection recurrence rate after a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange arthroplasty, and the rate of cemented versus cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic hip infections. Methods: We searched for eligible studies published up to December 2015. Full text or abstract in English were reviewed. We included studies reporting the infection recurrence rate as the outcome of interest following single- or two-stage exchange arthroplasty, or both, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and appraised quality assessment. Results: After study selection, 90 observational studies were included. The majority of studies were focused on a two-stage hip exchange arthroplasty (65 %), 18 % on a single-stage exchange, and only a 17 % were comparative studies. There was no statistically significant difference between a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange in terms of recurrence of infection in controlled studies (pooled odds ratio of 1.37 [95 % CI = 0.68-2.74, I-2 = 45.5 %]). Similarly, the recurrence infection rate in cementless versus cemented single-stage hip exchanges failed to demonstrate a significant difference, due to the substantial heterogeneity among the studies. Conclusion: Despite the methodological limitations and the heterogeneity between single cohorts studies, if we considered only the available controlled studies no superiority was demonstrated between a single- and two-stage exchange at a minimum of 12 months follow-up. The overalapping of confidence intervals related to single-stage cementless and cemented hip exchanges, showed no superiority of either technique.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review
    D. A. George
    N. Logoluso
    G. Castellini
    S. Gianola
    S. Scarponi
    F. S. Haddad
    L. Drago
    C. L. Romano
    BMC Infectious Diseases, 16
  • [2] Outcome of single-stage versus two-stage exchange for revision knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection
    Pangaud, Corentin
    Ollivier, Matthieu
    Argenson, Jean-Noel
    EFORT OPEN REVIEWS, 2019, 4 (08) : 495 - 502
  • [3] Cementless two-stage exchange arthroplasty for infection after total hip arthroplasty
    Masri, Bassam A.
    Panagiotopoulos, Kostas P.
    Greidanus, Nelson V.
    Garbuz, Donald S.
    Duncan, Clive P.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2007, 22 (01): : 72 - 78
  • [4] Two-stage hip revision arthroplasty with a hexagonal modular cementless stem in cases of periprosthetic infection
    Dieckmann, Ralf
    Schulz, Dino
    Gosheger, Georg
    Becker, Karsten
    Daniilidis, Kiriakos
    Streitbuerger, Arne
    Hardes, Jendrik
    Hoell, Steffen
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2014, 15
  • [5] Two-stage hip revision arthroplasty with a hexagonal modular cementless stem in cases of periprosthetic infection
    Ralf Dieckmann
    Dino Schulz
    Georg Gosheger
    Karsten Becker
    Kiriakos Daniilidis
    Arne Streitbürger
    Jendrik Hardes
    Steffen Hoell
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 15
  • [6] Single-Stage Hip and Knee Exchange for Periprosthetic Joint Infection
    George, David A.
    Konan, Sujith
    Haddad, Fares S.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2015, 30 (12): : 2264 - 2270
  • [7] Indications for a single-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic prosthetic joint infection A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
    Thakrar, R. R.
    Horriat, S.
    Kayani, B.
    Haddad, F. S.
    BONE & JOINT JOURNAL, 2019, 101B (01): : 19 - 24
  • [8] Two-Stage Exchange Hip Arthroplasty for Deep Infection
    Lin, J.
    Yang, X.
    Bostrom, M. P. G.
    JOURNAL OF CHEMOTHERAPY, 2001, 13 : 54 - 65
  • [9] Single-stage versus two-stage revision for shoulder periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Belay, Elshaday S.
    Danilkowicz, Richard
    Bullock, Garrett
    Wall, Kevin
    Garrigues, Grant E.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2020, 29 (12) : 2476 - 2486
  • [10] Two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection in cemented total hip arthroplasty: an increased risk for failure?
    Christian Hipfl
    Vincent Leopold
    Luis Becker
    Matthias Pumberger
    Carsten Perka
    Sebastian Hardt
    Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 2023, 143 : 4481 - 4490