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
  • [31] Plasma fibrinogen may predict persistent infection before reimplantation in two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic hip infection
    Chi Xu
    Peng-Fei Qu
    Wei Chai
    Rui Li
    Ji-Ying Chen
    Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 14
  • [32] Plasma fibrinogen may predict persistent infection before reimplantation in two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic hip infection
    Xu, Chi
    Qu, Peng-Fei
    Chai, Wei
    Li, Rui
    Chen, Ji-Ying
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH, 2019, 14 (1)
  • [33] Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-stage vs two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection: a call for a prospective randomized trial
    Yong Zhao
    Shaohua Fan
    Zhangfu Wang
    Xueli Yan
    Hua Luo
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 25
  • [34] Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: The Rate and Reason for the Attrition After the First Stage
    Wang, Qiaojie
    Goswami, Karan
    Kuo, Feng-Chih
    Xu, Chi
    Tan, Timothy L.
    Parvizi, Javad
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2019, 34 (11): : 2749 - 2756
  • [35] Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-stage vs two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection: a call for a prospective randomized trial
    Zhao, Yong
    Fan, Shaohua
    Wang, Zhangfu
    Yan, Xueli
    Luo, Hua
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2024, 25 (01)
  • [36] Outcomes, Complications, and Eradication Rates of Two-Stage Revision Surgery for Periprosthetic Shoulder, Elbow, Hip, and Knee Infections: A Systematic Review
    Mercurio, Michele
    Cofano, Erminia
    Colace, Stefano
    Piro, Federico
    Cerciello, Simone
    Galasso, Olimpio
    Gasparini, Giorgio
    PROSTHESIS, 2024, 6 (05): : 1240 - 1258
  • [37] A Low Percentage of Patients Satisfy Typical Indications for Single-stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection
    Dombrowski, M. E.
    Wilson, A. E.
    Wawrose, R. A.
    O'Malley, M. J.
    Urish, K. L.
    Klatt, B. A.
    CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2020, 478 (08) : 1780 - 1786
  • [38] Complications of Resection Arthroplasty in Two-Stage Revision for the Treatment of Periprosthetic Hip Joint Infection
    Sigmund, Irene K.
    Winkler, Tobias
    Oender, Nuri
    Perka, Carsten
    Renz, Nora
    Trampuz, Andrej
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2019, 8 (12)
  • [39] Two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection following total hip arthroplasty
    Fowler, Timothy J.
    Sayers, Adrian
    Whitehouse, Michael R.
    ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, 2019, 7
  • [40] Two-stage exchange Arthroplasty is a viable treatment for Periprosthetic joint infection in inflammatory diseases
    Qiao Jiang
    Jun Fu
    Wei Chai
    Li-Bo Hao
    Yong-Gang Zhou
    Chi Xu
    Ji-Ying Chen
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 21