前交叉韧带重建后脓毒性关节炎会导致不良的预后吗?观察性研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

Q2 Medicine
Ashleigh Peng Lin, Bao Tu Thai Nguyen, Son Quang Tran, Yi-Jie Kuo, Shu-Wei Huang, Yu-Pin Chen
{"title":"前交叉韧带重建后脓毒性关节炎会导致不良的预后吗?观察性研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ashleigh Peng Lin, Bao Tu Thai Nguyen, Son Quang Tran, Yi-Jie Kuo, Shu-Wei Huang, Yu-Pin Chen","doi":"10.1186/s43019-024-00248-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Septic arthritis is a rare but devastating complication after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). While early treatment can prevent significant graft complications, outcomes are often inferior to those in uncomplicated ACLR. Furthermore, whether to retain or remove the graft after infection remains debatable. Therefore, we sought to compare the outcomes of septic arthritis post ACLR with uncomplicated ACLR and evaluate graft retention versus removal in infected patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in which PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Clinical studies were included if they compared patient-reported, clinician-reported, or radiographic outcomes (minimum follow-up of 12 months) between patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis and those with uncomplicated ACLR or that compared graft retention and removal in patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen studies were retrieved. Patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis reported inferior Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale scores (mean difference (MD) 7.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.20-11.86; P = 0.0006), Tegner Activity Scale scores (MD, 1.42; 95% CI 1.07-1.76; P < .00001), and return to sports rates (53% versus 76%, respectively) to those of patients with uncomplicated ACLR. Patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis and those with uncomplicated ACLR did not differ in terms of the pooled estimate of various clinician-reported outcomes, such as the objective International Knee Documentation Committee score, anterior-posterior laxity, pivot shift, and Lachman test results. Furthermore, no significant difference was noted between the aforementioned patient groups regarding osteoarthritis (detected radiographically). Graft retention led to better patient- and clinician-reported outcomes than graft removal.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite similar clinician-reported outcomes and osteoarthritis rates, patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis reported worse outcomes than those with uncomplicated ACLR. Graft retention leads to improved patient- and clinician-reported outcomes compared with the outcomes of graft removal. Our findings may help develop realistic expectations and management strategies for this rare complication.</p>","PeriodicalId":36317,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery and Related Research","volume":"36 1","pages":"45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11622541/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction lead to poor outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.\",\"authors\":\"Ashleigh Peng Lin, Bao Tu Thai Nguyen, Son Quang Tran, Yi-Jie Kuo, Shu-Wei Huang, Yu-Pin Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s43019-024-00248-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Septic arthritis is a rare but devastating complication after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). While early treatment can prevent significant graft complications, outcomes are often inferior to those in uncomplicated ACLR. Furthermore, whether to retain or remove the graft after infection remains debatable. Therefore, we sought to compare the outcomes of septic arthritis post ACLR with uncomplicated ACLR and evaluate graft retention versus removal in infected patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in which PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Clinical studies were included if they compared patient-reported, clinician-reported, or radiographic outcomes (minimum follow-up of 12 months) between patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis and those with uncomplicated ACLR or that compared graft retention and removal in patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen studies were retrieved. Patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis reported inferior Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale scores (mean difference (MD) 7.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.20-11.86; P = 0.0006), Tegner Activity Scale scores (MD, 1.42; 95% CI 1.07-1.76; P < .00001), and return to sports rates (53% versus 76%, respectively) to those of patients with uncomplicated ACLR. Patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis and those with uncomplicated ACLR did not differ in terms of the pooled estimate of various clinician-reported outcomes, such as the objective International Knee Documentation Committee score, anterior-posterior laxity, pivot shift, and Lachman test results. Furthermore, no significant difference was noted between the aforementioned patient groups regarding osteoarthritis (detected radiographically). Graft retention led to better patient- and clinician-reported outcomes than graft removal.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite similar clinician-reported outcomes and osteoarthritis rates, patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis reported worse outcomes than those with uncomplicated ACLR. Graft retention leads to improved patient- and clinician-reported outcomes compared with the outcomes of graft removal. Our findings may help develop realistic expectations and management strategies for this rare complication.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knee Surgery and Related Research\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"45\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11622541/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knee Surgery and Related Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-024-00248-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee Surgery and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-024-00248-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:化脓性关节炎是前交叉韧带重建(ACLR)后罕见但毁灭性的并发症。虽然早期治疗可以预防明显的移植物并发症,但结果往往不如无并发症的ACLR。此外,感染后是否保留或移除移植物仍有争议。因此,我们试图比较ACLR后脓毒性关节炎与无并发症ACLR的结果,并评估感染患者的移植物保留与移除。方法:我们对PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆的数据库进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。如果比较ACLR后脓毒性关节炎患者和无并发症ACLR患者的患者报告、临床报告或影像学结果(至少随访12个月),或比较ACLR后脓毒性关节炎患者的移植物保留和移除,则纳入临床研究。结果:检索到13项研究。aclr后脓毒性关节炎患者Lysholm膝关节评分较低(平均差(MD) 7.53;95%置信区间(CI) 3.20-11.86;P = 0.0006), Tegner活动量表得分(MD, 1.42;95% ci 1.07-1.76;结论:尽管临床报告的结果和骨关节炎发生率相似,但ACLR后脓毒性关节炎患者报告的结果比无并发症ACLR患者差。与移植物移除的结果相比,移植物保留可以改善患者和临床报告的结果。我们的发现可能有助于为这种罕见的并发症制定切合实际的期望和管理策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction lead to poor outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Background: Septic arthritis is a rare but devastating complication after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). While early treatment can prevent significant graft complications, outcomes are often inferior to those in uncomplicated ACLR. Furthermore, whether to retain or remove the graft after infection remains debatable. Therefore, we sought to compare the outcomes of septic arthritis post ACLR with uncomplicated ACLR and evaluate graft retention versus removal in infected patients.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in which PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Clinical studies were included if they compared patient-reported, clinician-reported, or radiographic outcomes (minimum follow-up of 12 months) between patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis and those with uncomplicated ACLR or that compared graft retention and removal in patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis.

Results: Thirteen studies were retrieved. Patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis reported inferior Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale scores (mean difference (MD) 7.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.20-11.86; P = 0.0006), Tegner Activity Scale scores (MD, 1.42; 95% CI 1.07-1.76; P < .00001), and return to sports rates (53% versus 76%, respectively) to those of patients with uncomplicated ACLR. Patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis and those with uncomplicated ACLR did not differ in terms of the pooled estimate of various clinician-reported outcomes, such as the objective International Knee Documentation Committee score, anterior-posterior laxity, pivot shift, and Lachman test results. Furthermore, no significant difference was noted between the aforementioned patient groups regarding osteoarthritis (detected radiographically). Graft retention led to better patient- and clinician-reported outcomes than graft removal.

Conclusions: Despite similar clinician-reported outcomes and osteoarthritis rates, patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis reported worse outcomes than those with uncomplicated ACLR. Graft retention leads to improved patient- and clinician-reported outcomes compared with the outcomes of graft removal. Our findings may help develop realistic expectations and management strategies for this rare complication.

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
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
审稿时长
19 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