Cargando…

Control strategies to prevent total hip replacement-related infections: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise the available evidence and estimate the comparative efficacy of control strategies to prevent total hip replacement (THR)-related surgical site infections (SSIs) using a mixed treatment comparison. DESIGN: Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison. SETTING: Hospital a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zheng, Henry, Barnett, Adrian G, Merollini, Katharina, Sutton, Alex, Cooper, Nicola, Berendt, Tony, Wilson, Jennie, Graves, Nicholas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3948634/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24604480
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003978
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To synthesise the available evidence and estimate the comparative efficacy of control strategies to prevent total hip replacement (THR)-related surgical site infections (SSIs) using a mixed treatment comparison. DESIGN: Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison. SETTING: Hospital and other healthcare settings. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing THR. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of THR-related SSIs occurring following the surgical operation. RESULTS: 12 studies involving 123 788 THRs and 9 infection control strategies were identified. The strategy of ‘systemic antibiotics+antibiotic-impregnated cement+conventional ventilation’ significantly reduced the risk of THR-related SSI compared with the referent strategy (no systemic antibiotics+plain cement+conventional ventilation), OR 0.13 (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.03–0.35), and had the highest probability (47–64%) and highest median rank of being the most effective strategy. There was some evidence to suggest that ‘systemic antibiotics+antibiotic-impregnated cement+laminar airflow’ could potentially increase infection risk compared with ‘systemic antibiotics+antibiotic-impregnated cement+conventional ventilation’, 1.96 (95% CrI 0.52–5.37). There was no high-quality evidence that antibiotic-impregnated cement without systemic antibiotic prophylaxis was effective in reducing infection compared with plain cement with systemic antibiotics, 1.28 (95% CrI 0.38–3.38). CONCLUSIONS: We found no convincing evidence in favour of the use of laminar airflow over conventional ventilation for prevention of THR-related SSIs, yet laminar airflow is costly and widely used. Antibiotic-impregnated cement without systemic antibiotics may not be effective in reducing THR-related SSIs. The combination with the highest confidence for reducing SSIs was ‘systemic antibiotics+antibiotic-impregnated cement+conventional ventilation’. Our evidence synthesis underscores the need to review current guidelines based on the available evidence, and to conduct further high-quality double-blind randomised controlled trials to better inform the current clinical guidelines and practice for prevention of THR-related SSIs.