银涂层植入物在预防假体周围感染方面的比较效果:系统回顾与荟萃分析

IF 1.5 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of orthopaedics Pub Date : 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1016/j.jor.2024.10.009
Halil Ibrahim Bulut , Erhan Okay , Enes Kanay , Sefa Giray Batibay , Korhan Ozkan
{"title":"银涂层植入物在预防假体周围感染方面的比较效果:系统回顾与荟萃分析","authors":"Halil Ibrahim Bulut ,&nbsp;Erhan Okay ,&nbsp;Enes Kanay ,&nbsp;Sefa Giray Batibay ,&nbsp;Korhan Ozkan","doi":"10.1016/j.jor.2024.10.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Despite the implementation of numerous preventive measures in recent years, the persistent challenge of periprosthetic infections remains. Among the various strategies, metallic modification of implants, particularly with silver, has emerged as a promising avenue. Silver's antimicrobial properties, coupled with its low human toxicity, render it an appealing option. However, ongoing debate surrounds its comparative efficacy in infection prevention when contrasted with titanium-coated prostheses.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The PubMed database was systematically searched up to March 2024. Studies in English that met predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria and utilized \"Megaprosthesis AND infection\" and \" silver-coated AND infection \" as key terms were included. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guided the article selection process.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>From a pool of 1892 potential papers after literature screening, 11 studies with a total of 1419 patients were meticulously selected for analysis. Among these patients, 638 were treated with silver-coated implants, while 781 received titanium-coated implants, resulting in 166 recorded cases of infection. Remarkably, the infection rate stood at 9.2 % for the silver-coated group, contrasting with 13.4 % for the titanium-coated group. The subsequent analysis unveiled a notable discrepancy in proportions (P difference = −0.0473, 95 % CI: −0.088 to −0.006), signaling a statistically significant decrease in infections within the silver-coated cohort. Furthermore, the I2 statistic, denoting heterogeneity in effect sizes, stood at 21.8 % (95 % CI: 0.0–66.9), indicating a modest degree of variability among the studies. These findings offer compelling insights into the comparative effectiveness of silver-coated implants, suggesting their potential superiority in infection prevention.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In conclusion, our systematic review and meta-analysis shed light on the potential of silver-coated implants in mitigating periprosthetic infections. Despite the persistent challenge posed by such infections, our findings suggest a statistically significant decrease in infection rates among patients treated with silver-coated implants compared to those with titanium-coated ones.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16633,"journal":{"name":"Journal of orthopaedics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative effectiveness of silver-coated implants in periprosthetic infection prevention: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Halil Ibrahim Bulut ,&nbsp;Erhan Okay ,&nbsp;Enes Kanay ,&nbsp;Sefa Giray Batibay ,&nbsp;Korhan Ozkan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jor.2024.10.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Despite the implementation of numerous preventive measures in recent years, the persistent challenge of periprosthetic infections remains. Among the various strategies, metallic modification of implants, particularly with silver, has emerged as a promising avenue. Silver's antimicrobial properties, coupled with its low human toxicity, render it an appealing option. However, ongoing debate surrounds its comparative efficacy in infection prevention when contrasted with titanium-coated prostheses.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The PubMed database was systematically searched up to March 2024. Studies in English that met predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria and utilized \\\"Megaprosthesis AND infection\\\" and \\\" silver-coated AND infection \\\" as key terms were included. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guided the article selection process.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>From a pool of 1892 potential papers after literature screening, 11 studies with a total of 1419 patients were meticulously selected for analysis. Among these patients, 638 were treated with silver-coated implants, while 781 received titanium-coated implants, resulting in 166 recorded cases of infection. Remarkably, the infection rate stood at 9.2 % for the silver-coated group, contrasting with 13.4 % for the titanium-coated group. The subsequent analysis unveiled a notable discrepancy in proportions (P difference = −0.0473, 95 % CI: −0.088 to −0.006), signaling a statistically significant decrease in infections within the silver-coated cohort. Furthermore, the I2 statistic, denoting heterogeneity in effect sizes, stood at 21.8 % (95 % CI: 0.0–66.9), indicating a modest degree of variability among the studies. These findings offer compelling insights into the comparative effectiveness of silver-coated implants, suggesting their potential superiority in infection prevention.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In conclusion, our systematic review and meta-analysis shed light on the potential of silver-coated implants in mitigating periprosthetic infections. Despite the persistent challenge posed by such infections, our findings suggest a statistically significant decrease in infection rates among patients treated with silver-coated implants compared to those with titanium-coated ones.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16633,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of orthopaedics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of orthopaedics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0972978X24003374\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of orthopaedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0972978X24003374","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言尽管近年来实施了许多预防措施,但假体周围感染的挑战依然存在。在各种策略中,对植入物进行金属改性,特别是使用银,已成为一种很有前景的方法。银的抗菌特性及其对人体的低毒性使其成为一种极具吸引力的选择。然而,关于银与钛涂层假体在预防感染方面的功效对比,目前仍存在争议。方法对截至 2024 年 3 月的 PubMed 数据库进行了系统检索,纳入了符合预定纳入/排除标准的英文研究,并将 "Megaprosthesis 和感染 "和 "银涂层和感染 "作为关键词。结果从经过文献筛选的 1892 篇潜在论文中,精心挑选出 11 项研究,共 1419 名患者进行了分析。在这些患者中,638 人接受了银涂层植入物的治疗,781 人接受了钛涂层植入物的治疗,记录在案的感染病例为 166 例。值得注意的是,银涂层组的感染率为 9.2%,而钛涂层组为 13.4%。随后的分析显示出比例上的显著差异(P 差 = -0.0473,95 % CI:-0.088 至 -0.006),表明银涂层组的感染率在统计学上显著下降。此外,表示效应大小异质性的 I2 统计量为 21.8%(95 % CI:0.0-66.9),表明研究之间存在一定程度的差异。总之,我们的系统综述和荟萃分析揭示了银涂层植入物在减轻假体周围感染方面的潜力。尽管此类感染一直是个挑战,但我们的研究结果表明,与使用钛涂层植入物的患者相比,使用银涂层植入物的患者感染率在统计学上有显著下降。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparative effectiveness of silver-coated implants in periprosthetic infection prevention: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Despite the implementation of numerous preventive measures in recent years, the persistent challenge of periprosthetic infections remains. Among the various strategies, metallic modification of implants, particularly with silver, has emerged as a promising avenue. Silver's antimicrobial properties, coupled with its low human toxicity, render it an appealing option. However, ongoing debate surrounds its comparative efficacy in infection prevention when contrasted with titanium-coated prostheses.

Methods

The PubMed database was systematically searched up to March 2024. Studies in English that met predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria and utilized "Megaprosthesis AND infection" and " silver-coated AND infection " as key terms were included. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guided the article selection process.

Results

From a pool of 1892 potential papers after literature screening, 11 studies with a total of 1419 patients were meticulously selected for analysis. Among these patients, 638 were treated with silver-coated implants, while 781 received titanium-coated implants, resulting in 166 recorded cases of infection. Remarkably, the infection rate stood at 9.2 % for the silver-coated group, contrasting with 13.4 % for the titanium-coated group. The subsequent analysis unveiled a notable discrepancy in proportions (P difference = −0.0473, 95 % CI: −0.088 to −0.006), signaling a statistically significant decrease in infections within the silver-coated cohort. Furthermore, the I2 statistic, denoting heterogeneity in effect sizes, stood at 21.8 % (95 % CI: 0.0–66.9), indicating a modest degree of variability among the studies. These findings offer compelling insights into the comparative effectiveness of silver-coated implants, suggesting their potential superiority in infection prevention.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our systematic review and meta-analysis shed light on the potential of silver-coated implants in mitigating periprosthetic infections. Despite the persistent challenge posed by such infections, our findings suggest a statistically significant decrease in infection rates among patients treated with silver-coated implants compared to those with titanium-coated ones.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
6.70%
发文量
202
审稿时长
56 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedics aims to be a leading journal in orthopaedics and contribute towards the improvement of quality of orthopedic health care. The journal publishes original research work and review articles related to different aspects of orthopaedics including Arthroplasty, Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, Trauma, Spine and Spinal deformities, Pediatric orthopaedics, limb reconstruction procedures, hand surgery, and orthopaedic oncology. It also publishes articles on continuing education, health-related information, case reports and letters to the editor. It is requested to note that the journal has an international readership and all submissions should be aimed at specifying something about the setting in which the work was conducted. Authors must also provide any specific reasons for the research and also provide an elaborate description of the results.
期刊最新文献
The short-term outcomes of cementless collared triple-tapered stem for primary total hip arthroplasty in patients ≥70-years old Anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing inpatient total knee arthroplasty: A matched analysis Effect of vehicular vibrations on L-4 lumbar vertebrae – A finite element study Hidden costs of first choice alternatives: A financial model of thromboprophylaxis and prosthetic joint infection prophylaxis in total knee arthroplasty Is limb overcorrection following total knee arthroplasty compromising functional outcome?
×
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:481959085
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