PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication of joint arthroplasty that causes significant pain and economic loss. This study aimed to determine whether the current evidence supports single-stage revision for PJI based on reinfection and reoperation rates.
METHODS: We searched the PubMed, EBSCO, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to 30 May 2023 to identify studies that compared single-stage revision and two-stage revision for PJI. Data on reinfection and reoperation rates were pooled.
RESULTS: This meta-analysis included a total of 40 studies with 8711 patients. Overall, there was no significant difference between single- and two-stage revision regarding the postoperative reinfection rate and reoperation rate. Subgroup analysis by surgery period and different surgical sites revealed no difference between the two groups in the reinfection and reoperation rates.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, our study did not identify a significant difference in reinfection and reoperation rates between single- and two-stage revision for PJI. Given the limitations in inclusion/exclusion criteria and the observed heterogeneity, we acknowledge the complexity of drawing strong conclusions. Therefore, we suggest that the choice between single- and two-stage revision should be carefully considered on an individual basis, taking into account patient-specific factors and further research developments.
METHODS: We searched the PubMed, EBSCO, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to 30 May 2023 to identify studies that compared single-stage revision and two-stage revision for PJI. Data on reinfection and reoperation rates were pooled.
RESULTS: This meta-analysis included a total of 40 studies with 8711 patients. Overall, there was no significant difference between single- and two-stage revision regarding the postoperative reinfection rate and reoperation rate. Subgroup analysis by surgery period and different surgical sites revealed no difference between the two groups in the reinfection and reoperation rates.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, our study did not identify a significant difference in reinfection and reoperation rates between single- and two-stage revision for PJI. Given the limitations in inclusion/exclusion criteria and the observed heterogeneity, we acknowledge the complexity of drawing strong conclusions. Therefore, we suggest that the choice between single- and two-stage revision should be carefully considered on an individual basis, taking into account patient-specific factors and further research developments.
摘要：
背景：假体周围关节感染（PJI）是关节成形术的严重并发症，会导致严重的疼痛和经济损失。这项研究旨在确定当前证据是否支持基于再感染和再手术率的PJI单阶段修订。
方法：我们搜索了PubMed，EBSCO,Medline,和Cochrane图书馆数据库从开始到2023年5月30日，以确定比较PJI单阶段修订和两阶段修订的研究。合并再感染和再手术率的数据。
结果：本荟萃分析共纳入40项研究，共8711例患者。总的来说,在术后再感染率和再手术率方面，单阶段和两阶段翻修之间没有显着差异。按手术时间和不同手术部位进行的亚组分析显示，两组之间的再感染率和再手术率没有差异。
结论：根据现有证据，我们的研究未发现PJI单阶段和两阶段翻修之间的再感染率和再手术率存在显著差异.考虑到纳入/排除标准的局限性和观察到的异质性，我们承认得出强有力结论的复杂性。因此,我们建议在单阶段和两阶段修订之间的选择应该单独仔细考虑，考虑到患者的具体因素和进一步的研究进展。
方法：我们搜索了PubMed，EBSCO,Medline,和Cochrane图书馆数据库从开始到2023年5月30日，以确定比较PJI单阶段修订和两阶段修订的研究。合并再感染和再手术率的数据。
结果：本荟萃分析共纳入40项研究，共8711例患者。总的来说,在术后再感染率和再手术率方面，单阶段和两阶段翻修之间没有显着差异。按手术时间和不同手术部位进行的亚组分析显示，两组之间的再感染率和再手术率没有差异。
结论：根据现有证据，我们的研究未发现PJI单阶段和两阶段翻修之间的再感染率和再手术率存在显著差异.考虑到纳入/排除标准的局限性和观察到的异质性，我们承认得出强有力结论的复杂性。因此,我们建议在单阶段和两阶段修订之间的选择应该单独仔细考虑，考虑到患者的具体因素和进一步的研究进展。
