School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK.
BMC Med. 2012 Feb 16;10:18. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-18.
Prosthetic joint infection is an uncommon but serious complication of hip replacement. There are two main surgical treatment options, with the choice largely based on the preference of the surgeon. Evidence is required regarding the comparative effectiveness of one-stage and two-stage revision to prevent reinfection after prosthetic joint infection.
We conducted a systematic review to identify randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and longitudinal studies in unselected patients with infection treated exclusively by one- or two-stage methods or by any method. The Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched up to March 2011. Reference lists were checked, and citations of key articles were identified by using the ISI Web of Science portal. Classification of studies and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The outcome measure studied was reinfection within 2 years. Data were combined to produce pooled random-effects estimates using the Freeman-Tukey arc-sine transformation.
We identified 62 relevant studies comprising 4,197 patients. Regardless of treatment, the overall rate of reinfection after any treatment was 10.1% (95% CI = 8.2 to 12.0). In 11 studies comprising 1,225 patients with infected hip prostheses who underwent exclusively one-stage revision, the rate of reinfection was 8.6% (95% CI = 4.5 to 13.9). After two-stage revision exclusively in 28 studies comprising 1,188 patients, the rate of reinfection was 10.2% (95% CI = 7.7 to 12.9).
Evidence of the relative effectiveness of one- and two-stage revision in preventing reinfection of hip prostheses is largely based on interpretation of longitudinal studies. There is no suggestion in the published studies that one- or two stage methods have different reinfection outcomes. Randomised trials are needed to establish optimum management strategies.
人工关节感染是髋关节置换术后一种罕见但严重的并发症。主要有两种手术治疗选择,选择哪种方法主要取决于外科医生的偏好。需要有证据证明一期和二期翻修在预防人工关节感染后再感染方面的相对有效性。
我们进行了系统评价,以确定在未选择的感染患者中,仅采用一期或二期方法或任何方法治疗的随机对照试验、系统评价和纵向研究。检索了 Embase、MEDLINE 和 Cochrane 数据库,检索截止日期为 2011 年 3 月。查阅了参考文献,并通过 ISI Web of Science 门户识别了关键文章的引文。两位评审员独立进行了研究分类和数据提取。研究的结局测量是 2 年内再感染。使用 Freeman-Tukey 反正弦变换,将数据合并为汇总随机效应估计值。
我们共确定了 62 项相关研究,包含 4197 例患者。无论治疗方式如何,任何治疗后再感染的总体发生率为 10.1%(95%CI=8.2%至 12.0%)。在 11 项包含 1225 例接受单纯一期翻修的感染性髋关节假体患者的研究中,再感染率为 8.6%(95%CI=4.5%至 13.9%)。在 28 项包含 1188 例接受单纯二期翻修的研究中,再感染率为 10.2%(95%CI=7.7%至 12.9%)。
髋关节假体一期和二期翻修预防再感染相对有效性的证据主要基于对纵向研究的解释。在已发表的研究中,没有证据表明一期或二期方法有不同的再感染结果。需要进行随机试验来确定最佳的管理策略。