Changing the definition of treatment success alters treatment outcomes in periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.8 Q3 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Journal of Bone and Joint Infection Pub Date : 2024-04-26 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.5194/jbji-9-127-2024
Eytan M Debbi, Tyler Khilnani, Ioannis Gkiatas, Yu-Fen Chiu, Andy O Miller, Michael W Henry, Alberto V Carli
{"title":"Changing the definition of treatment success alters treatment outcomes in periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Eytan M Debbi, Tyler Khilnani, Ioannis Gkiatas, Yu-Fen Chiu, Andy O Miller, Michael W Henry, Alberto V Carli","doi":"10.5194/jbji-9-127-2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: Variability in the definition of treatment success poses difficulty when assessing the reported efficacy of treatments for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). To address this problem, we determined how definitions of PJI treatment success have changed over time and how this has affected published rates of success after one-stage and two-stage treatments for hip and knee PJI. <b>Methods</b>: A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted to identify one-stage and two-stage revision hip and knee PJI publications in major databases (2006-2021). Definition of treatment success, based on Musculoskeletal Infection Society tier criteria, was identified for each study. Publication year, number of patients, minimum follow-up, and study quality were also recorded. The association of success definitions and treatment success rate was measured using multi-variable meta-regression. <b>Results</b>: Study quality remained unchanged in the 245 publications included. Over time, no antibiotics (tier 1) and no further surgery (tier 3) (40.7 % and 54.5 %, respectively) became the two dominant criteria. After controlling for type of surgery, study quality, study design, follow-up, and year of publication, studies with less strict success definitions (tier 3) reported slightly higher odds ratios of 1.05 [1.01, 1.10] ( <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.009</mn></mrow> </math> ) in terms of treatment success rates compared to tier 1. <b>Conclusions</b>: PJI researchers have gravitated towards tier-1 and tier-3 definitions of treatment success. While studies with stricter definitions had lower PJI treatment success, the clinical significance of this is unclear. Study quality, reflected in the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) score, did not improve. We advocate for improving PJI study quality, including clarification of the definition of treatment success.</p>","PeriodicalId":15271,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection","volume":"9 2","pages":"127-136"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11184615/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/jbji-9-127-2024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Variability in the definition of treatment success poses difficulty when assessing the reported efficacy of treatments for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). To address this problem, we determined how definitions of PJI treatment success have changed over time and how this has affected published rates of success after one-stage and two-stage treatments for hip and knee PJI. Methods: A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted to identify one-stage and two-stage revision hip and knee PJI publications in major databases (2006-2021). Definition of treatment success, based on Musculoskeletal Infection Society tier criteria, was identified for each study. Publication year, number of patients, minimum follow-up, and study quality were also recorded. The association of success definitions and treatment success rate was measured using multi-variable meta-regression. Results: Study quality remained unchanged in the 245 publications included. Over time, no antibiotics (tier 1) and no further surgery (tier 3) (40.7 % and 54.5 %, respectively) became the two dominant criteria. After controlling for type of surgery, study quality, study design, follow-up, and year of publication, studies with less strict success definitions (tier 3) reported slightly higher odds ratios of 1.05 [1.01, 1.10] ( p = 0.009 ) in terms of treatment success rates compared to tier 1. Conclusions: PJI researchers have gravitated towards tier-1 and tier-3 definitions of treatment success. While studies with stricter definitions had lower PJI treatment success, the clinical significance of this is unclear. Study quality, reflected in the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) score, did not improve. We advocate for improving PJI study quality, including clarification of the definition of treatment success.

改变治疗成功的定义会改变假体周围关节感染的治疗效果:系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:在评估髋关节和膝关节假体周围感染(PJI)治疗方法的疗效报告时,治疗成功定义的差异会造成困难。为了解决这一问题,我们确定了随着时间的推移,PJI 治疗成功的定义是如何变化的,以及这对已发表的髋关节和膝关节 PJI 一阶段和两阶段治疗后的成功率有何影响。方法:按照《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses,PRISMA)指南进行了系统综述,以确定主要数据库(2006-2021 年)中关于髋关节和膝关节 PJI 一期和二期翻修治疗的出版物。根据肌肉骨骼感染协会的分级标准,确定了每项研究的治疗成功定义。同时还记录了发表年份、患者人数、最低随访时间和研究质量。采用多变量元回归法测量了成功定义与治疗成功率之间的关系。研究结果在纳入的 245 篇论文中,研究质量保持不变。随着时间的推移,无抗生素(第 1 级)和无进一步手术(第 3 级)(分别占 40.7% 和 54.5%)成为两个主要标准。在对手术类型、研究质量、研究设计、随访和发表年份进行控制后,成功定义不那么严格的研究(第 3 级)与第 1 级相比,治疗成功率的几率比略高,为 1.05 [1.01, 1.10] ( p = 0.009)。结论:PJI研究人员倾向于采用第一级和第三级的治疗成功定义。虽然定义更严格的研究的 PJI 治疗成功率较低,但其临床意义尚不明确。以非随机研究方法指数(MINORS)评分反映的研究质量并没有提高。我们主张提高 PJI 研究质量,包括明确治疗成功的定义。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信