Domenico De Mauro, Chiara Comisi, Enrico Festa, Tiziana Ascione, Massimo Mariconda, Giovanni Balato
{"title":"前假体植入后全膝关节置换术:假体移除策略影响假体周围关节感染吗?系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Domenico De Mauro, Chiara Comisi, Enrico Festa, Tiziana Ascione, Massimo Mariconda, Giovanni Balato","doi":"10.1530/EOR-24-0100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients who underwent previous knee surgeries can be a challenging procedure both technically and for the complication rate. Conversion TKA is affected by a higher risk of infection compared to primary TKA. The aims of this meta-analysis are i) to compare the infectious risk among patients undergoing TKA after a prior hardware implantation, evaluating removal vs maintenance of the hardware, and ii) within the removal group, to compare staged vs concurrent procedure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature review was conducted up to January 2024. The review was registered in the PROSPERO database: CRD42024510444. The inclusion criteria comprised the following: i) patients aged 18 years or older, ii) individuals who had undergone total knee replacement and iii) those with a history of prior nonabsorbable hardware implantation. The pooled incidence of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) was reported using odds ratios with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The investigation of database and references identified 284 studies. PJI risks differed significantly among groups, with a higher risk in the removal group (z = 3.5630, P = 0.0004). Furthermore, within the removal group, the risk of PJI was lower in cases of staged removal compared to concurrent removal (z = 2.0931, P = 0.0363).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>TKA following a previous knee hardware implantation indicates a higher PJI risk when the hardware is removed compared to leaving it in place. If hardware removal is necessary, staged removal is recommended. The presence of minor hardware is the only scenario where, if removal is necessary, one-stage approach is preferred.</p>","PeriodicalId":48598,"journal":{"name":"Efort Open Reviews","volume":"10 2","pages":"95-103"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11825155/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Total knee arthroplasty following previous hardware implantation: do hardware removal strategies influence periprosthetic joint infections? A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Domenico De Mauro, Chiara Comisi, Enrico Festa, Tiziana Ascione, Massimo Mariconda, Giovanni Balato\",\"doi\":\"10.1530/EOR-24-0100\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients who underwent previous knee surgeries can be a challenging procedure both technically and for the complication rate. Conversion TKA is affected by a higher risk of infection compared to primary TKA. The aims of this meta-analysis are i) to compare the infectious risk among patients undergoing TKA after a prior hardware implantation, evaluating removal vs maintenance of the hardware, and ii) within the removal group, to compare staged vs concurrent procedure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature review was conducted up to January 2024. The review was registered in the PROSPERO database: CRD42024510444. The inclusion criteria comprised the following: i) patients aged 18 years or older, ii) individuals who had undergone total knee replacement and iii) those with a history of prior nonabsorbable hardware implantation. The pooled incidence of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) was reported using odds ratios with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The investigation of database and references identified 284 studies. PJI risks differed significantly among groups, with a higher risk in the removal group (z = 3.5630, P = 0.0004). Furthermore, within the removal group, the risk of PJI was lower in cases of staged removal compared to concurrent removal (z = 2.0931, P = 0.0363).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>TKA following a previous knee hardware implantation indicates a higher PJI risk when the hardware is removed compared to leaving it in place. If hardware removal is necessary, staged removal is recommended. The presence of minor hardware is the only scenario where, if removal is necessary, one-stage approach is preferred.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48598,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Efort Open Reviews\",\"volume\":\"10 2\",\"pages\":\"95-103\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11825155/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Efort Open Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-24-0100\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Print\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Efort Open Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-24-0100","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:全膝关节置换术(TKA)是一项具有挑战性的手术,无论是在技术上还是在并发症发生率上。与原发性TKA相比,转化性TKA受感染风险更高。本荟萃分析的目的是i)比较术前硬体植入后接受TKA的患者的感染风险,评估移除硬体与维持硬体,以及ii)在移除组内,比较分期手术与同期手术。方法:根据PRISMA指南,系统回顾截至2024年1月的文献。该综述已在PROSPERO数据库中注册:CRD42024510444。纳入标准包括:i) 18岁或以上的患者,ii)接受过全膝关节置换术的患者,iii)既往有不可吸收性硬体植入史的患者。使用比值比和相应的95%置信区间(ci)报告假体周围关节感染(PJI)的合并发生率。结果:通过对数据库和文献的调查,确定了284篇相关研究。PJI风险组间差异显著,切除组风险较高(z = 3.5630, P = 0.0004)。此外,在切除组中,分期切除的PJI风险低于同期切除(z = 2.0931, P = 0.0363)。结论:先前的膝关节假体植入后的TKA表明,与保留假体相比,移除假体后的PJI风险更高。如果需要拆卸硬件,建议分阶段拆卸。小型硬件的存在是唯一的场景,如果需要删除,则首选一阶段方法。
Total knee arthroplasty following previous hardware implantation: do hardware removal strategies influence periprosthetic joint infections? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Purpose: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients who underwent previous knee surgeries can be a challenging procedure both technically and for the complication rate. Conversion TKA is affected by a higher risk of infection compared to primary TKA. The aims of this meta-analysis are i) to compare the infectious risk among patients undergoing TKA after a prior hardware implantation, evaluating removal vs maintenance of the hardware, and ii) within the removal group, to compare staged vs concurrent procedure.
Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature review was conducted up to January 2024. The review was registered in the PROSPERO database: CRD42024510444. The inclusion criteria comprised the following: i) patients aged 18 years or older, ii) individuals who had undergone total knee replacement and iii) those with a history of prior nonabsorbable hardware implantation. The pooled incidence of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) was reported using odds ratios with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Results: The investigation of database and references identified 284 studies. PJI risks differed significantly among groups, with a higher risk in the removal group (z = 3.5630, P = 0.0004). Furthermore, within the removal group, the risk of PJI was lower in cases of staged removal compared to concurrent removal (z = 2.0931, P = 0.0363).
Conclusions: TKA following a previous knee hardware implantation indicates a higher PJI risk when the hardware is removed compared to leaving it in place. If hardware removal is necessary, staged removal is recommended. The presence of minor hardware is the only scenario where, if removal is necessary, one-stage approach is preferred.
期刊介绍:
EFORT Open Reviews publishes high-quality instructional review articles across the whole field of orthopaedics and traumatology. Commissioned, peer-reviewed articles from international experts summarize current knowledge and practice in orthopaedics, with the aim of providing systematic coverage of the field. All articles undergo rigorous scientific editing to ensure the highest standards of accuracy and clarity.
This continuously published online journal is fully open access and will provide integrated CME. It is an authoritative resource for educating trainees and supports practising orthopaedic surgeons in keeping informed about the latest clinical and scientific advances.
One print issue containing a selection of papers from the journal will be published each year to coincide with the EFORT Annual Congress.
EFORT Open Reviews is the official journal of the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (EFORT) and is published in partnership with The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.