Re-Infection Outcomes Following One- And Two-Stage Surgical Revision of Infected Knee Prosthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Periprosthetic 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.

Objective

Our 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.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, reference lists of relevant studies to August 2015, and correspondence with investigators.

Study selection

Longitudinal (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 methods

Two 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.

Results

The 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.

Limitations

Potential bias owing to the limited number of one-stage revision studies and inability to explore heterogeneity in greater detail.

Conclusions

Available 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 registration

PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015017327

Related collections

Most cited references 29

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods.

S G Thompson, S J Sharp (1999)

Exploring the possible reasons for heterogeneity between studies is an important aspect of conducting a meta-analysis. This paper compares a number of methods which can be used to investigate whether a particular covariate, with a value defined for each study in the meta-analysis, explains any heterogeneity. The main example is from a meta-analysis of randomized trials of serum cholesterol reduction, in which the log-odds ratio for coronary events is related to the average extent of cholesterol reduction achieved in each trial. Different forms of weighted normal errors regression and random effects logistic regression are compared. These analyses quantify the extent to which heterogeneity is explained, as well as the effect of cholesterol reduction on the risk of coronary events. In a second example, the relationship between treatment effect estimates and their precision is examined, in order to assess the evidence for publication bias. We conclude that methods which allow for an additive component of residual heterogeneity should be used. In weighted regression, a restricted maximum likelihood estimator is appropriate, although a number of other estimators are also available. Methods which use the original form of the data explicitly, for example the binomial model for observed proportions rather than assuming normality of the log-odds ratios, are now computationally feasible. Although such methods are preferable in principle, they often give similar results in practice. Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

0 comments Cited 226 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002.

Steven Kurtz, Fionna Mowat, Kevin Ong … (2005)

The purpose of this study was to quantify the procedural rate and revision burden of total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States and to determine if the age or gender-based procedural rates and overall revision burden are changing over time. The National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) for 1990 through 2002 was used in conjunction with United States Census data to quantify the rates of primary and revision arthroplasty as a function of age and gender within the United States with use of methodology published by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Poisson regression analysis was used to evaluate the procedural rate and to determine year-to-year trends in primary and revision arthroplasty rates as a function of both age and gender. Both the number and the rate of total hip and knee arthroplasties (particularly knee arthroplasties) increased steadily between 1990 and 2002. Over the thirteen years, the rate of primary total hip arthroplasties per 100,000 persons increased by approximately 50%, whereas the corresponding rate of primary total knee arthroplasties almost tripled. The rate of revision total hip arthroplasties increased by 3.7 procedures per 100,000 persons per decade, and that of revision total knee arthroplasties, by 5.4 procedures per 100,000 persons per decade. However, the mean revision burden of 17.5% for total hip arthroplasty was more than twice that for total knee arthroplasty (8.2%), and this did not change substantially over time. The number and prevalence of primary hip and knee replacements increased substantially in the United States between 1990 and 2002, but the trend was considerably more pronounced for primary total knee arthroplasty. The reported prevalence trends have important ramifications with regard to the number of joint replacements expected to be performed by orthopaedic surgeons in the future. Because the revision burden has been relatively constant over time, we can expect that a greater number of primary replacements will result in a greater number of revisions unless some limiting mechanism can be successfully implemented to reduce the future revision burden.

0 comments Cited 196 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales: a comparative analysis with projections for the United States. A study using the National Joint Registry dataset.

S A A Patel, G Pavlou, R. E. Mujica-Mota … (2015)

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) are recognised and proven interventions for patients with advanced arthritis. Studies to date have demonstrated a steady increase in the requirement for primary and revision procedures. Projected estimates made for the United States show that by 2030 the demand for primary TKA will grow by 673% and for revision TKA by 601% from the level in 2005. For THA the projected estimates are 174% and 137% for primary and revision surgery, respectively. The purpose of this study was to see if those predictions were similar for England and Wales using data from the National Joint Registry and the Office of National Statistics. Analysis of data for England and Wales suggest that by 2030, the volume of primary and revision TKAs will have increased by 117% and 332%, respectively between 2012 and 2030. The data for the United States translates to a 306% cumulative rate of increase between 2012 and 2030 for revision surgery, which is similar to our predictions for England and Wales. The predictions from the United States for primary TKA were similar to our upper limit projections. For THA, we predicted an increase of 134% and 31% for primary and revision hip surgery, respectively. Our model has limitations, however, it highlights the economic burden of arthroplasty in the future in England and Wales as a real and unaddressed problem. This will have significant implications for the provision of health care and the management of orthopaedic services in the future.

0 comments Cited 168 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Heiner Baur: Role: Editor

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): PLoS One

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): PLoS ONE

Journal ID (publisher-id): plos

Journal ID (pmc): plosone

Title: PLoS ONE

Publisher: Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )

ISSN (Electronic): 1932-6203

Publication date (Electronic): 11 March 2016

Publication date Collection: 2016

Volume: 11

Issue: 3

Electronic Location Identifier: e0151537

Affiliations

[001]Musculoskeletal Research Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Learning & Research Building (Level 1), Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Bristol, BS10 5NB, United Kingdom

Bern University of Applied Sciences, SWITZERLAND

Author notes

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Conceived and designed the experiments: SKK MRW EL AWB ADB INFORM Team. Performed the experiments: SKK ADB. Analyzed the data: SKK. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: SKK MRW EL AWB ADB INFORM Team. Wrote the paper: SKK MRW EL AWB ADB INFORM Team.

¶ Membership of the INFORM Team is provided in the Acknowledgments.

* E-mail: skk31@ 123456cantab.net

Article

Publisher ID: PONE-D-15-48340

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151537

PMC ID: 4788419

PubMed ID: 26967645

SO-VID: c73176de-9e05-4c23-bd8d-dd628e66c8d3

License:

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

History

Date received : 4 November 2015

Date accepted : 28 February 2016

Page count

Figures: 3, Tables: 2, Pages: 15

Funding

This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research program (RP-PG-1210-12005). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Custom metadata

Data Availability All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Re-Infection Outcomes Following One- And Two-Stage Surgical Revision of Infected Knee Prosthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Objective

Design

Data sources

Study selection

Review methods

Results

Limitations

Conclusions

Systematic review registration

Related collections

PLOS Climate

Most cited references 29

Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods.

Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002.

The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales: a comparative analysis with projections for the United States. A study using the National Joint Registry dataset.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Page count

Funding

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 175

Cited by 74

Most referenced authors 1,410