Cargando…

Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review

BACKGROUND: The best surgical modality for treating chronic periprosthetic hip infections remains controversial, with a lack of randomised controlled studies. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the infection recurrence rate after a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange arthroplasty,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: George, D. A., Logoluso, N., Castellini, G., Gianola, S., Scarponi, S., Haddad, F. S., Drago, L., Romano, C. L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5057405/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27724919
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-016-1869-4
_version_ 1782459060573962240
author George, D. A.
Logoluso, N.
Castellini, G.
Gianola, S.
Scarponi, S.
Haddad, F. S.
Drago, L.
Romano, C. L.
author_facet George, D. A.
Logoluso, N.
Castellini, G.
Gianola, S.
Scarponi, S.
Haddad, F. S.
Drago, L.
Romano, C. L.
author_sort George, D. A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The best surgical modality for treating chronic periprosthetic hip infections remains controversial, with a lack of randomised controlled studies. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the infection recurrence rate after a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange arthroplasty, and the rate of cemented versus cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic hip infections. METHODS: We searched for eligible studies published up to December 2015. Full text or abstract in English were reviewed. We included studies reporting the infection recurrence rate as the outcome of interest following single- or two-stage exchange arthroplasty, or both, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and appraised quality assessment. RESULTS: After study selection, 90 observational studies were included. The majority of studies were focused on a two-stage hip exchange arthroplasty (65 %), 18 % on a single-stage exchange, and only a 17 % were comparative studies. There was no statistically significant difference between a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange in terms of recurrence of infection in controlled studies (pooled odds ratio of 1.37 [95 % CI = 0.68-2.74, I(2) = 45.5 %]). Similarly, the recurrence infection rate in cementless versus cemented single-stage hip exchanges failed to demonstrate a significant difference, due to the substantial heterogeneity among the studies. CONCLUSION: Despite the methodological limitations and the heterogeneity between single cohorts studies, if we considered only the available controlled studies no superiority was demonstrated between a single- and two-stage exchange at a minimum of 12 months follow-up. The overalapping of confidence intervals related to single-stage cementless and cemented hip exchanges, showed no superiority of either technique.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5057405
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50574052016-10-20 Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review George, D. A. Logoluso, N. Castellini, G. Gianola, S. Scarponi, S. Haddad, F. S. Drago, L. Romano, C. L. BMC Infect Dis Research Article BACKGROUND: The best surgical modality for treating chronic periprosthetic hip infections remains controversial, with a lack of randomised controlled studies. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the infection recurrence rate after a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange arthroplasty, and the rate of cemented versus cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic hip infections. METHODS: We searched for eligible studies published up to December 2015. Full text or abstract in English were reviewed. We included studies reporting the infection recurrence rate as the outcome of interest following single- or two-stage exchange arthroplasty, or both, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and appraised quality assessment. RESULTS: After study selection, 90 observational studies were included. The majority of studies were focused on a two-stage hip exchange arthroplasty (65 %), 18 % on a single-stage exchange, and only a 17 % were comparative studies. There was no statistically significant difference between a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange in terms of recurrence of infection in controlled studies (pooled odds ratio of 1.37 [95 % CI = 0.68-2.74, I(2) = 45.5 %]). Similarly, the recurrence infection rate in cementless versus cemented single-stage hip exchanges failed to demonstrate a significant difference, due to the substantial heterogeneity among the studies. CONCLUSION: Despite the methodological limitations and the heterogeneity between single cohorts studies, if we considered only the available controlled studies no superiority was demonstrated between a single- and two-stage exchange at a minimum of 12 months follow-up. The overalapping of confidence intervals related to single-stage cementless and cemented hip exchanges, showed no superiority of either technique. BioMed Central 2016-10-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5057405/ /pubmed/27724919 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-016-1869-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
George, D. A.
Logoluso, N.
Castellini, G.
Gianola, S.
Scarponi, S.
Haddad, F. S.
Drago, L.
Romano, C. L.
Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review
title Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review
title_full Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review
title_fullStr Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review
title_short Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review
title_sort does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? a systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5057405/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27724919
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-016-1869-4
work_keys_str_mv AT georgeda doescementedorcementlesssinglestageexchangearthroplastyofchronicperiprosthetichipinfectionsprovidesimilarinfectionratestoatwostageasystematicreview
AT logoluson doescementedorcementlesssinglestageexchangearthroplastyofchronicperiprosthetichipinfectionsprovidesimilarinfectionratestoatwostageasystematicreview
AT castellinig doescementedorcementlesssinglestageexchangearthroplastyofchronicperiprosthetichipinfectionsprovidesimilarinfectionratestoatwostageasystematicreview
AT gianolas doescementedorcementlesssinglestageexchangearthroplastyofchronicperiprosthetichipinfectionsprovidesimilarinfectionratestoatwostageasystematicreview
AT scarponis doescementedorcementlesssinglestageexchangearthroplastyofchronicperiprosthetichipinfectionsprovidesimilarinfectionratestoatwostageasystematicreview
AT haddadfs doescementedorcementlesssinglestageexchangearthroplastyofchronicperiprosthetichipinfectionsprovidesimilarinfectionratestoatwostageasystematicreview
AT dragol doescementedorcementlesssinglestageexchangearthroplastyofchronicperiprosthetichipinfectionsprovidesimilarinfectionratestoatwostageasystematicreview
AT romanocl doescementedorcementlesssinglestageexchangearthroplastyofchronicperiprosthetichipinfectionsprovidesimilarinfectionratestoatwostageasystematicreview