Dataset Information

One- and two-stage surgical revision of infected elbow prostheses following total joint replacement: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prosthetic 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.

Methods

MEDLINE, 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).

Results

Staphylococcus 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.

Conclusions

No 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 registration

PROSPERO 2018: CRD42018118002 .

SUBMITTER: Kunutsor SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6806568 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

One- and two-stage surgical revision of infected elbow prostheses following total joint replacement: a systematic review.

Kunutsor Setor K SK Beswick Andrew D AD Whitehouse Michael R MR Blom Ashley W AW

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20191022 1

<h4>Background</h4>Prosthetic 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 fu ...[more]

PMID: 31640638

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundPeriprosthetic 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.ObjectiveOur 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.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, reference lists of relevant studies to August 2015, and correspondence with investigators.Study selectionLongitudinal (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 methodsTwo 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.ResultsThe 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.LimitationsPotential bias owing to the limited number of one-stage revision studies and inability to explore heterogeneity in greater detail.ConclusionsAvailable 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 registrationPROSPERO 2015: CRD42015017327.

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:IntroductionPrimary total elbow replacement (TER) services in England are being restructured with the goal of centralising care to specialised centres. It is important to monitor the impact of this service redesign. This protocol outlines an intended analysis to provide detailed descriptions of the patients who are receiving primary TER, where and by whom TER is being performed, and what the current surgical practices for TER are in England before the reconfiguration.MethodsThis analysis will use the National Joint Registry (NJR) elbow dataset and link it with NHS England Hospital Episode Statistics-Admitted Patient Care (HES-APC). It will include eligible patients from the start of the NJR elbow dataset in April 2012 to December 2022. The main objective is to determine the incidence of TER in England. Age-sex standardised rates will be calculated for groups including different ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds, using the mid-year population data provided by the Office for National Statistics. This planned analysis will summarise patient characteristics such as age, sex, body mass index (BMI), hand dominance, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for TER, socioeconomic status, and patient co-morbidities. It will also examine implant fixation type, classification, brand/type, and changes over time in implant types used in England. Additionally, it will explore the characteristics and volume of the surgeons and hospitals providing primary TER services, including the grade of the primary surgeons, funding source for surgery, and admission type. The analysis will cover the number of procedures performed by surgeons and hospitals annually in England and in each region of England. Finally, the planned analysis will summarise the elective wait time, postoperative length of stay, and any serious adverse events or re-admissions within 30 and 90 days after the TER.DiscussionThis protocol describes the first deep dive analysis into the NJR elbow dataset to describe the incidence of TER surgery in England and the characteristics of patients who are receiving it. This analysis will summarise current primary TER practices in England before service reconfigurations. The impact of reconfiguration can be monitored by comparing future practice to the outcomes from this study. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06355011. Registered 02 April 2024, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT06355011 .

Dataset Information

One- and two-stage surgical revision of infected elbow prostheses following total joint replacement: a systematic review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Systematic review registration

Publications

One- and two-stage surgical revision of infected elbow prostheses following total joint replacement: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets