Re-Infection Outcomes following One- and Two-Stage Surgical Revision of Infected Hip Prosthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: The 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. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of one- and two-stage revision strategies in treating prosthetic hip infection, using re-infection as an outcome. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, manual search of bibliographies to March 2015, and email contact with investigators. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort 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 METHODS: Data 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. RESULTS: In 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. CONCLUSION: Evidence 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 REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015016559