Variations in clinical practice of one-stage septic revisions in chronic hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections: an international questionnaire study

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Michelle M. J. Jacobs, Karin Veerman, Jon H. M. Goosen
{"title":"Variations in clinical practice of one-stage septic revisions in chronic hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections: an international questionnaire study","authors":"Michelle M. J. Jacobs,&nbsp;Karin Veerman,&nbsp;Jon H. M. Goosen","doi":"10.1007/s00402-024-05690-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Recent studies have increasingly provided evidence that one-stage septic revisions for hip and knee are a safe treatment option for periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) in selected patients. However, there is still a wide treatment variation concerning indications and execution among different practices. This study aimed to describe these differences.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>We set out an online questionnaire among members of the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) in September 2023. The questionnaire consisted of questions investigating indications, execution, and preferences regarding one-stage hip and knee septic revisions. Descriptive analysis was performed of all results and Chi-squared tests were used to test for differences in opinions between subgroups of respondents.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Sixty-five orthopaedic revision arthroplasty surgeons completed the questionnaire. 68% prefer to standardly perform two-stage revisions and only do one-stage revisions in selected patients. However, there was no consensus on which (contra-)indications should be used to select these patients. The most important reason to not perform one-stage revisions was fear of a higher reinfection risk, partly due to inconclusive literature. There was also no consensus on which perioperative antimicrobial measures should be applied.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Notable differences in indications for and execution of one-stage septic revisions persist. We encourage others to share their experiences with this procedure. Moreover, clinical trials should be undertaken to provide stronger evidence for the safety of one-stage septic revisions and to provide clear and uniform guidelines.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8326,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","volume":"145 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00402-024-05690-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Recent studies have increasingly provided evidence that one-stage septic revisions for hip and knee are a safe treatment option for periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) in selected patients. However, there is still a wide treatment variation concerning indications and execution among different practices. This study aimed to describe these differences.

Methods

We set out an online questionnaire among members of the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) in September 2023. The questionnaire consisted of questions investigating indications, execution, and preferences regarding one-stage hip and knee septic revisions. Descriptive analysis was performed of all results and Chi-squared tests were used to test for differences in opinions between subgroups of respondents.

Results

Sixty-five orthopaedic revision arthroplasty surgeons completed the questionnaire. 68% prefer to standardly perform two-stage revisions and only do one-stage revisions in selected patients. However, there was no consensus on which (contra-)indications should be used to select these patients. The most important reason to not perform one-stage revisions was fear of a higher reinfection risk, partly due to inconclusive literature. There was also no consensus on which perioperative antimicrobial measures should be applied.

Conclusions

Notable differences in indications for and execution of one-stage septic revisions persist. We encourage others to share their experiences with this procedure. Moreover, clinical trials should be undertaken to provide stronger evidence for the safety of one-stage septic revisions and to provide clear and uniform guidelines.

慢性髋关节和膝关节假体周围关节感染一期脓毒性修复的临床实践差异:一项国际问卷研究
最近的研究越来越多地提供证据表明,髋关节和膝关节一期脓毒性修复术是特定患者假体周围关节感染(PJI)的安全治疗选择。然而,在不同的实践中,在适应症和执行方面仍然存在很大的治疗差异。本研究旨在描述这些差异。方法于2023年9月对欧洲骨关节感染学会(EBJIS)会员进行在线问卷调查。调查问卷包括调查适应症、执行和对一期髋关节和膝关节脓毒性修复的偏好的问题。对所有结果进行描述性分析,并使用卡方检验来检验被调查者亚组之间的意见差异。结果65名骨科翻修关节成形术医师完成问卷调查。68%的人倾向于标准地进行两期修复,而在选定的患者中只进行一期修复。然而,对于哪些(反)适应症应该用于选择这些患者,并没有达成共识。不进行一期修复的最重要原因是担心更高的再感染风险,部分原因是文献不确定。对于围手术期应采取何种抗菌措施也没有达成共识。结论一期脓毒症修复术的适应证和执行仍存在显著差异。我们鼓励其他人分享他们在这方面的经验。此外,应该进行临床试验,为一期脓毒症治疗的安全性提供更有力的证据,并提供明确和统一的指南。
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
4.30
自引率
13.00%
发文量
424
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is a rich source of instruction and information for physicians in clinical practice and research in the extensive field of orthopaedics and traumatology. The journal publishes papers that deal with diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system from all fields and aspects of medicine. The journal is particularly interested in papers that satisfy the information needs of orthopaedic clinicians and practitioners. The journal places special emphasis on clinical relevance. "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is the official journal of the German Speaking Arthroscopy Association (AGA).
×
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