Dataset Information

Re-Infection Outcomes Following One- And Two-Stage Surgical Revision of Infected Knee Prosthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication of total knee arthroplasty. Two-stage revision is the most widely used technique and considered as the most effective for treating periprosthetic knee infection. The one-stage revision strategy is an emerging alternative option, however, its performance in comparison to the two-stage strategy is unclear. We therefore sought to ask if there was a difference in re-infection rates and other clinical outcomes when comparing the one-stage to the two-stage revision strategy.

Objective

Our first objective was to compare re-infection (new and recurrent infections) rates for one- and two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic knee infection. Our second objective was to compare between the two revision strategies, clinical outcomes as measured by postoperative Knee Society Knee score, Knee Society Function score, Hospital for Special Surgery knee score, WOMAC score, and range of motion.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, reference lists of relevant studies to August 2015, and correspondence with investigators.

Study selection

Longitudinal (prospective or retrospective cohort) studies conducted in generally unselected patients with periprosthetic knee infection treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and with re-infection outcomes reported within two years of revision surgery. No clinical trials comparing both revision strategies were identified.

Review methods

Two independent investigators extracted data and discrepancies were resolved by consensus with a third investigator. Re-infection rates from 10 one-stage studies (423 participants) and 108 two-stage studies (5,129 participants) were meta-analysed using random-effect models after arcsine transformation.

Results

The rate (95% confidence intervals) of re-infection was 7.6% (3.4-13.1) in one-stage studies. The corresponding re-infection rate for two-stage revision was 8.8% (7.2-10.6). In subgroup analyses, re-infection rates remained generally similar for several study-level and clinically relevant characteristics. Postoperative clinical outcomes of knee scores and range of motion were similar for both revision strategies.

Limitations

Potential bias owing to the limited number of one-stage revision studies and inability to explore heterogeneity in greater detail.

Conclusions

Available evidence from aggregate published data suggest the one-stage revision strategy may be as effective as the two-stage revision strategy in treating infected knee prostheses in generally unselected patients. Further investigation is warranted.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015017327.

SUBMITTER: Kunutsor SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4788419 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe two-stage revision strategy has been claimed as being the "gold standard" for treating prosthetic joint infection. The one-stage revision strategy remains an attractive alternative option; however, its effectiveness in comparison to the two-stage strategy remains uncertain.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of one- and two-stage revision strategies in treating prosthetic hip infection, using re-infection as an outcome.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, manual search of bibliographies to March 2015, and email contact with investigators.Study selectionCohort studies (prospective or retrospective) conducted in generally unselected patients with prosthetic hip infection treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and with re-infection outcomes reported within two years of revision. No clinical trials were identified.Review methodsData were extracted by two independent investigators and a consensus was reached with involvement of a third. Rates of re-infection from 38 one-stage studies (2,536 participants) and 60 two-stage studies (3,288 participants) were aggregated using random-effect models after arcsine transformation, and were grouped by study and population level characteristics.ResultsIn one-stage studies, the rate (95% confidence intervals) of re-infection was 8.2% (6.0-10.8). The corresponding re-infection rate after two-stage revision was 7.9% (6.2-9.7). Re-infection rates remained generally similar when grouped by several study and population level characteristics. There was no strong evidence of publication bias among contributing studies.ConclusionEvidence from aggregate published data suggest similar re-infection rates after one- or two-stage revision among unselected patients. More detailed analyses under a broader range of circumstances and exploration of other sources of heterogeneity will require collaborative pooling of individual participant data.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2015: CRD42015016559.

Project description:BackgroundProsthetic joint infection (PJI) is a challenging complication of total elbow replacement (TER). Potential surgical treatments include one- or two-stage revision; however, the best treatment for elbow PJI is not clearly defined. We conducted a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to compare the clinical effectiveness of one- and two-stage revision surgery for elbow PJI using re-infection (recurrent and new infections) rates; mortality; clinical measures of function, pain, and satisfaction; and non-infection related adverse events.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library were searched up to June 2019 to identify observational cohort studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that had recruited patients with elbow PJI following TER and treated with one- or two-stage revision. Of 96 retrieved articles, 2 one-stage and 6 two-stage revision studies were eligible. No RCT was identified. Arcsine transformation was used in estimating rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsStaphylococcus aureus was the most common causative organism for PJI of the elbow (24 of 71 elbow PJIs). The re-infection rate (95% CI) for one-stage (7 elbows) ranged from 0.0% (0.0-79.3) to 16.7% (3.0-56.4) and that for two-stage revision (87 elbows) from 0.0% (0.0-49.0) to 20.0% (3.6-62.4). Non-infection related adverse event rate for one-stage (based on a single study) was 16.7% (3.0-56.4) and that for two-stage ranged from 11.8% (4.7-26.6) to 20.0% (3.6-62.4). There were no mortality events recorded following one- or two-stage revision surgery and postoperative clinical measures of function, pain, and satisfaction could not be effectively compared because of limited data.ConclusionsNo strong conclusions can be drawn because of limited data. The one-stage revision may be potentially at least as clinically effective as two-stage revision, but further data is needed. There are clear gaps in the existing literature and studies are urgently warranted to assess the clinical effectiveness of one- and two-stage revision strategies for PJI following TER.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2018: CRD42018118002 .

Project description:BackgroundA two-stage prosthesis exchange procedure has been the gold standard in surgical treatment of the chronically infected knee arthroplasty so far. This includes 2 surgeries/hospitalizations and an interim period of 2-3 months between surgeries with impaired health, functional status and quality of life of the patients. A one-stage exchange procedure holds many obvious advantages compared to the two-stage approach, but outcomes of a one-stage versus two-stage procedures have never been investigated in a randomized clinical trial. The purpose of this study is primarily to investigate time-adjusted differences in functional status of patients after one-stage versus two-stage revision. Secondary, to report time-adjusted differences in quality of life, complications (including re-revisions due to infection) and mortality.MethodsThis study is a pragmatic, multi-center, randomized, non-inferiority trial comparing one-stage versus two-stage revision of the infected knee arthroplasty. Seven Danish hospitals are currently participating in the study, but additional hospitals can enter the study if adhering to protocol. Ninety-six patients will be included prospectively. Follow-up will be with PROM-questionnaires and clinical controls up to 10 years. The patients who are not able to participate in the randomized trial are followed in a parallel cohort study.Prom'sOxford Knee Score and EQ5D + EQ5D VAS questionnaires are completed preoperatively and sent out to the study participants at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 24 months as well as 5 and 10 years postoperatively. In addition a tailor made cost questionnaire on the non-treating hospital resource use, community health and social service use, travel costs, time off work and informal care are sent out.DiscussionIf one of the two treatment alternatives is found superior in both domains of quality of life (both knee-specific and generic) and health economics, that treatment should be promoted. Other outcomes will open informed discussions about treatment strategies for periprosthetic knee infections.Trial registrationThe randomized trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT03435679 , initial release date January 31, 2018 and the cohort study is registered with ID NCT04427943 , submitted January 8, 2020 and posted June 11, 2020.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Prosthetic joint infections (PJI) of hip and knee arthroplasties are becoming increasingly common with an aging population and an increasing demand for these procedures. Despite attempts at standardization, medical and surgical approaches vary widely among practitioners. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:We first sought to determine if there were specific factors associated with choice of one- versus two-stage revision. Then we investigated whether the type of revision approach influenced clinical treatment success. Finally, among two-stage revisions, we assessed if an antibiotic holiday prior to the second procedure affected clinical treatment success. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed patients who had revision surgery for infection of a hip or knee arthroplasty between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2013, at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and the Holland Orthopedic and Arthritic Centre. PJI cases were identified using the Ontario Joint Replacement Registry. Infection was defined by gross intraoperative evidence of infection, positive intraoperative culture(s), and/or sinus tract prior to operation. The primary outcome was treatment failure at 1 year after revision surgery based on requirement for further surgery, ongoing infection, and/or continuous suppressive antibiotics. RESULTS:Of 110 eligible patients identified, 35 patients had a one-stage and 75 patients had a two-stage revision. Choice of a one-stage approach was most influenced by particular surgeon preference and was more likely for hip revision versus knee revision (OR 3.39 (95%CI 1.85-6.23). There was no statistical difference in clinical treatment success rate between one-stage (33/35; 94.2% success) and two-stage revision (63/75; 84%; p = 0.13). Enterococcus spp. (21 versus 3%; p = 0.027) and Peptostreptococcus spp. (14 versus 1%; p = 0.042) were more common among clinical treatment failures than successes, with a trend towards the same for Staphylococcus aureus (29 versus 9%; p = 0.06). Additionally, treatment success was not influenced by whether the patient had an antibiotic holiday with a two-stage revision. CONCLUSION:Our findings confirm the uncertainty of surgical strategy for treatment of PJI in hip and knee arthroplasty. Superiority of one- versus two-stage revision and the value of antibiotic-free periods prior to definitive revision remain unclear. Large prospective studies or randomized controlled trials are needed to inform best practice for treatment of these complex clinical problems.

Project description:BackgroundMetal sensitivity as a cause for painful joint replacement has become increasingly prevalent; however, there is a lack of reported clinical outcome data from total knee arthroplasty patients with metal allergies. The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients presenting with a painful total knee arthroplasty with a positive metal sensitivity have improved outcomes following revision to a hypoallergenic implant.MethodsA retrospective review was conducted for patients that underwent a revision total knee arthroplasty after metal sensitivity testing over a 3-year period from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017. Based on the results of sensitivity testing, patients underwent revision total knee arthroplasty to a hypoallergenic component or a standard component. Following revision, patients returned to the clinic at an interval of 6?weeks, 5?months, and 12?months for functional, pain, and satisfaction assessment. Outcomes were compared within and between sensitivity groups.ResultsOf the included patients, 78.3% (39/46) were positive for metal sensitivity. The most common metal sensitivity was to nickel (79.5%, 32/39). Both non-reactive and reactive patients significantly improved in range of motion after revision arthroplasty. The reactive group saw a 37.8% decrease in pain at 6?weeks post-revision (p?<?0.001) Whereas, the non-reactive group only saw a moderate, non-significant improvement in pain reduction at 6?weeks post-revision (27.0%; p?=?0.29). Frequency of pain experienced did not vary significantly between groups. Maximum metal lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) sensitivity score did not correlate with pain level at the time of revision (R2?=?0.02, p?=?0.38) or percent improvement after revision (R2?=?0.001, p?=?0.81). Overall, all patients reported being very satisfied after revision total knee arthroplasty; there was no difference between positive and negative sensitivity groups (W?=?62, p?=?0.89).ConclusionsPatients presenting with a painful knee arthroplasty and positive metal LTT have improved pain scores, walking function, and range of motion following revision to a hypoallergenic component. This study also provides a treatment algorithm for patients presenting with a painful knee replacement, in order to provide effective and timely diagnosis and management.