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
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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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