Comparative Reinfection Rate of One-stage Versus Two-stage Revision in the Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Total Hip Arthroplasty: a Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Orthopedics
Physiology

Date 2024 Dec 20

PMID 39707249

Authors

Yueying Qin

Zeshou Liu

Liwen Li

Yuxing Yang

Xiaomeng Huang

Weiming Liang

Longbao Lin

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Debates persist on the optimal surgical approach for treating Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA). This meta-analysis aimed to compare the reinfection rate of one-stage revision versus two-stage revision for PJI after THA.

Methods: A comprehensive search was performed in four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) to locate articles that assessed the reinfection rate of one-stage revision compared to two-stage revision. Meta-analyses of reinfection rate were performed.

Results: A total of 14 articles including of 1429 patients were chosen for inclusion in this meta-analysis, with 561 patients in the one-stage group and 868 patients in the two-stage group. The meta-analysis of the 14 trials revealed that there was no statistically significant disparity in the reinfection rate between the two groups(OR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.92 ~ 1.93, P = 0.12, I = 0). A subgroup analysis was conducted based on the presence of a well-defined algorithm for decision making in either a one-stage or two-stage revision. There was no statistically significant difference in reinfection rate between one-stage and two-stage revision if there was a decision algorithm(OR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.44 ~ 1.54, P = 0.55, I = 0). If not, the reinfection rate of one-stage revision was significantly higher than that of two-stage revision(OR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.11 ~ 2.88, P = 0.02, I = 0). Postoperative hip function score was significantly better in the one-stage revision group than that of the two-stage revision group(SMD = 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 ~ 0.78, P<0.05, I = 79%).

Conclusions: A strategy that is clearly defined and can be used for decision making in one-stage or two-stage revision is necessary for the treatment of PJI after THA. When there is significant damage to the soft tissue and/or the presence of strong microorganisms, a two-stage revision is recommended in order to decrease the reinfection rate. One-stage revision is recommended for patients with low-toxic infections and intact soft tissue.

Trial Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42023450842, 17 August 2023) https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023450842 .

References

Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner P . Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351(16):1645-54. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra040181. View

Anagnostakos K, Kelm J, Schmitt E, Jung J . Fungal periprosthetic hip and knee joint infections clinical experience with a 2-stage treatment protocol. J Arthroplasty. 2011; 27(2):293-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2011.04.044. View

Pellegrini A, Legnani C . High rate of infection eradication following cementless one-stage revision hip arthroplasty with an antibacterial hydrogel coating. Int J Artif Organs. 2021; 45(1):113-117. DOI: 10.1177/0391398821995507. View

Wolf M, Clar H, Friesenbichler J, Schwantzer G, Bernhardt G, Gruber G . Prosthetic joint infection following total hip replacement: results of one-stage versus two-stage exchange. Int Orthop. 2014; 38(7):1363-8. PMC: 4071490. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-014-2309-y. View

Ilchmann T, Zimmerli W, Ochsner P, Kessler B, Zwicky L, Graber P . One-stage revision of infected hip arthroplasty: outcome of 39 consecutive hips. Int Orthop. 2015; 40(5):913-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-015-2833-4. View

Dombrowski M, Wilson A, Wawrose R, OMalley M, Urish K, Klatt B . A Low Percentage of Patients Satisfy Typical Indications for Single-stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020; 478(8):1780-1786. PMC: 7371047. DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001243. View

Tirumala V, Klemt C, van den Kieboom J, Xiong L, Kwon Y . Comparison of patient reported outcome measures after single versus two-stage revision for chronic infection of total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective propensity score matched cohort study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021; 141(10):1789-1796. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-021-03810-6. View

Giulieri S, Graber P, Ochsner P, Zimmerli W . Management of infection associated with total hip arthroplasty according to a treatment algorithm. Infection. 2004; 32(4):222-8. DOI: 10.1007/s15010-004-4020-1. View

Jhan S, Lu Y, Lee M, Lee C, Wang J, Kuo F . The risk factors of failed reimplantation arthroplasty for periprosthetic hip infection. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017; 18(1):255. PMC: 5469052. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-017-1622-1. View

10.

Koutserimpas C, Chamakioti I, Naoum S, Raptis K, Alpantaki K, Samonis G . Native Joint Infections by Species. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021; 11(12). PMC: 8700121. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11122335. View

11.

Sotiriou D, Stigbrand H, Ullmark G . Is two-stage revision surgery for infected hip arthroplasty worth the suffering, resources and results compared to one-stage?. Hip Int. 2020; 32(2):205-212. DOI: 10.1177/1120700020949162. View

12.

Koutserimpas C, Chamakioti I, Zervakis S, Raptis K, Alpantaki K, Kofteridis D . Non- Fungal Prosthetic Joint Infections. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021; 11(8). PMC: 8391504. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11081410. View

13.

Luo S, Qin W, Yu L, Luo R, Liang W . Total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of active elderly patients over 75 years with displaced femoral neck fractures: a retrospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023; 24(1):745. PMC: 10510144. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06860-6. View

14.

Ueng S, Lee C, Hu C, Hsieh P, Chang Y . What is the success of treatment of hip and knee candidal periprosthetic joint infection?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471(9):3002-9. PMC: 3734391. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3007-6. View

15.

Dijk B, Nurmohamed F, Hooning van Duijvenbode J, Veltman E, Rentenaar R, Weinans H . A mean 4-year evaluation of infection control rates of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection-related revision arthroplasty: an observational study. Acta Orthop. 2022; 93:652-657. PMC: 9290219. DOI: 10.2340/17453674.2022.3975. View

16.

Born P, Ilchmann T, Zimmerli W, Zwicky L, Graber P, Ochsner P . Eradication of infection, survival, and radiological results of uncemented revision stems in infected total hip arthroplasties. Acta Orthop. 2016; 87(6):637-643. PMC: 5119449. DOI: 10.1080/17453674.2016.1237423. View

17.

Morscher E, Babst R, JENNY H . Treatment of infected joint arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 1990; 14(2):161-5. DOI: 10.1007/BF00180122. View

18.

Cochran A, Ong K, Lau E, Mont M, Malkani A . Risk of Reinfection After Treatment of Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016; 31(9 Suppl):156-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.03.028. View

19.

Winkler H, Stoiber A, Kaudela K, Winter F, Menschik F . One stage uncemented revision of infected total hip replacement using cancellous allograft bone impregnated with antibiotics. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008; 90(12):1580-4. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.90B12.20742. View

20.

Ohlmeier M, Jachczik I, Citak M, Gehrke T, Hawi N, Haasper C . High re-revision rate following one-stage exchange for streptococcal periprosthetic joint infection of the hip. Hip Int. 2021; 32(4):488-492. DOI: 10.1177/1120700021991467. View