Prognosis after one- and two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/10225536251315973
Yiyuan Sun, Menghao Liu, Dan Xiao, Qi Li, Huan Xiong, Xue Luo, Boyu Zhu, Weili Fu
{"title":"Prognosis after one- and two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Yiyuan Sun, Menghao Liu, Dan Xiao, Qi Li, Huan Xiong, Xue Luo, Boyu Zhu, Weili Fu","doi":"10.1177/10225536251315973","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Revision surgeries for periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) in arthroplasty can follow either one- or two-stage treatment protocols. Previous studies have reported similar reinfection rates and reductions in complication rates for both treatment options. However, the literature on the selection of one protocol is still controversial. Thus, our aim was to compare the outcomes, including reinfections, complications, reoperations, and mortality, associated with one- and two-stage revision surgeries for PJI via a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Comparative studies were identified through searches in PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library as of November 2023. RevMan version 5.3 was used for the analyses. The included studies directly compared one-stage revisions with two-stage revisions for PJI. The primary outcomes included reinfection, complications, reoperation, and mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen cohort studies (fifteen retrospective and one prospective) were included in the systematic review. All studies comprising 2039 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Fourteen studies reported reinfection patient risk postrevision; when pooled via random effects models, 10.02% of patients in the one-stage group and 14.75% of patients in the two-stage group were reinfected, indicating low heterogeneity (risk ratio = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.50 - 0.94, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). A pooled analysis of ten studies reported complications between the two groups. Compared with the two-stage group, the one-stage group was associated with significantly fewer complications (risk ratio = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.63 - 0.91, I<sup>2</sup> = 27%). The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in reoperation events between the 1st-stage and 2nd-stage groups in nine studies (risk ratio = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.59 - 1.01, I<sup>2</sup> = 20%) or in mortality in ten studies (risk ratio = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.49 - 1.78, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among the available observational studies, the meta-analysis revealed a lower incidence of reinfection and complications in the one-stage group than in the two-stage group, but there were no significant differences in reoperation events or mortalities.</p>","PeriodicalId":16608,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery","volume":"33 1","pages":"10225536251315973"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10225536251315973","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Revision surgeries for periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) in arthroplasty can follow either one- or two-stage treatment protocols. Previous studies have reported similar reinfection rates and reductions in complication rates for both treatment options. However, the literature on the selection of one protocol is still controversial. Thus, our aim was to compare the outcomes, including reinfections, complications, reoperations, and mortality, associated with one- and two-stage revision surgeries for PJI via a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

Methods: Comparative studies were identified through searches in PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library as of November 2023. RevMan version 5.3 was used for the analyses. The included studies directly compared one-stage revisions with two-stage revisions for PJI. The primary outcomes included reinfection, complications, reoperation, and mortality.

Results: Sixteen cohort studies (fifteen retrospective and one prospective) were included in the systematic review. All studies comprising 2039 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Fourteen studies reported reinfection patient risk postrevision; when pooled via random effects models, 10.02% of patients in the one-stage group and 14.75% of patients in the two-stage group were reinfected, indicating low heterogeneity (risk ratio = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.50 - 0.94, I2 = 0%). A pooled analysis of ten studies reported complications between the two groups. Compared with the two-stage group, the one-stage group was associated with significantly fewer complications (risk ratio = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.63 - 0.91, I2 = 27%). The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in reoperation events between the 1st-stage and 2nd-stage groups in nine studies (risk ratio = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.59 - 1.01, I2 = 20%) or in mortality in ten studies (risk ratio = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.49 - 1.78, I2 = 0%).

Conclusions: Among the available observational studies, the meta-analysis revealed a lower incidence of reinfection and complications in the one-stage group than in the two-stage group, but there were no significant differences in reoperation events or mortalities.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
假体周围关节感染一期和二期翻修手术后的预后:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:关节置换术中假体周围关节感染(PJIs)的翻修手术可采用一期或两期治疗方案。先前的研究报告了两种治疗方案的再感染率和并发症发生率相似。然而,关于选择一种方案的文献仍然存在争议。因此,我们的目的是通过比较研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较PJI一期和二期翻修手术相关的结果,包括再感染、并发症、再手术和死亡率。方法:截至2023年11月,通过PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science和Cochrane Library的检索确定比较研究。使用RevMan 5.3版本进行分析。纳入的研究直接比较了PJI的一期修订与两期修订。主要结局包括再感染、并发症、再手术和死亡率。结果:系统评价纳入了16项队列研究(15项回顾性研究和1项前瞻性研究)。所有包含2039例患者的研究均纳入meta分析。14项研究报告了术后再感染患者的风险;当通过随机效应模型汇总时,一期组10.02%的患者和两期组14.75%的患者再次感染,异质性较低(风险比= 0.69;95% ci = 0.50 - 0.94, i2 = 0%)。一项对10项研究的汇总分析报告了两组之间的并发症。与两期治疗组相比,一期治疗组并发症发生率明显降低(风险比= 0.76;95% ci = 0.63 - 0.91, i2 = 27%)。meta分析显示,9项研究中,一期组和二期组再手术事件无显著差异(风险比= 0.77;95% CI = 0.59 - 1.01, I2 = 20%)或在10项研究中降低死亡率(风险比= 0.93;95% ci = 0.49 - 1.78, i2 = 0%)。结论:在现有的观察性研究中,荟萃分析显示,一期组的再感染和并发症发生率低于两期组,但再手术事件和死亡率无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery is an open access peer-reviewed journal publishing original reviews and research articles on all aspects of orthopaedic surgery. It is the official journal of the Asia Pacific Orthopaedic Association. The journal welcomes and will publish materials of a diverse nature, from basic science research to clinical trials and surgical techniques. The journal encourages contributions from all parts of the world, but special emphasis is given to research of particular relevance to the Asia Pacific region.
期刊最新文献
Optimizing multimodal diagnostic strategies for periprosthetic joint infection: Current advances and integration. Effect of epidural patient-controlled analgesia on pain relief after lumbar spinal surgeries-a case-control study. Performance and reliability of state-of-the-art LLMs in complex hand surgery scenarios: A prospective cross-sectional, double-blinded study. Denosumab treatment after percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: Long-term follow-up of pain relief, bone mineral density changes, and risk of refracture. Outcome of a Fixed-Bearing all-polyethylene unicompartmental tibial tray: A 12-year Joint Registry Follow-Up study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1