Yiyuan Sun, Menghao Liu, Dan Xiao, Qi Li, Huan Xiong, Xue Luo, Boyu Zhu, Weili Fu
{"title":"假体周围关节感染一期和二期翻修手术后的预后:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
目的:关节置换术中假体周围关节感染(PJIs)的翻修手术可采用一期或两期治疗方案。先前的研究报告了两种治疗方案的再感染率和并发症发生率相似。然而,关于选择一种方案的文献仍然存在争议。因此,我们的目的是通过比较研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较PJI一期和二期翻修手术相关的结果,包括再感染、并发症、再手术和死亡率。方法:截至2023年11月,通过PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science和Cochrane Library的检索确定比较研究。使用RevMan 5.3版本进行分析。纳入的研究直接比较了PJI的一期修订与两期修订。主要结局包括再感染、并发症、再手术和死亡率。结果:系统评价纳入了16项队列研究(15项回顾性研究和1项前瞻性研究)。所有包含2039例患者的研究均纳入meta分析。14项研究报告了术后再感染患者的风险;当通过随机效应模型汇总时,一期组10.02%的患者和两期组14.75%的患者再次感染,异质性较低(风险比= 0.69;95% ci = 0.50 - 0.94, i2 = 0%)。一项对10项研究的汇总分析报告了两组之间的并发症。与两期治疗组相比,一期治疗组并发症发生率明显降低(风险比= 0.76;95% ci = 0.63 - 0.91, i2 = 27%)。meta分析显示,9项研究中,一期组和二期组再手术事件无显著差异(风险比= 0.77;95% CI = 0.59 - 1.01, I2 = 20%)或在10项研究中降低死亡率(风险比= 0.93;95% ci = 0.49 - 1.78, i2 = 0%)。结论:在现有的观察性研究中,荟萃分析显示,一期组的再感染和并发症发生率低于两期组,但再手术事件和死亡率无显著差异。
Prognosis after one- and two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
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.