Research Fellow, National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Research Fellow, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Musculoskeletal Research Unit, University of Bristol, Learning & Research Building (Level 1), Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.
Medical Student, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2020 Mar-Apr;59(2):367-372. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2019.04.016.
Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total ankle replacement (TAR) is a challenging complication, which often requires debridement and implant retention (DAIR) with or without polyethylene exchange, revision surgery, implantation of a cement spacer, conversion to arthrodesis, or even amputation. The optimum treatment for ankle PJI is not well established. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical effectiveness of various treatment strategies for infected ankle prostheses. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to December 2018 for studies evaluating the impact of treatment in patient populations with infected ankle prostheses following TAR. Binary data were pooled after arcsine transformation. Six citations comprising 17 observational design comparisons were included. The reinfection rates (95% confidence intervals) for DAIR with or without polyethylene exchange, 1-stage revision, 2-stage revision, cement spacer, and arthrodesis were 39.8% (24.4 to 56.1), 0.0% (0.0 to 78.7), 0.0% (0.0 to 8.5), 0.2% (0.0 to 17.9), and 13.6% (0.0 to 45.8), respectively. Rates of amputation for DAIR with or without polyethylene exchange and cement spacer were 5.6% (0.0 to 16.9) and 22.2% (6.3 to 54.7), respectively. Measures of function, pain, and satisfaction could not be compared because of limited data. One- and 2-stage revision strategies seem to be associated with the lowest reinfection rates, but these findings are based on limited data. Arthrodesis and DAIR with or without polyethylene exchange appear to be commonly used in treating infected ankle prosthesis, but are associated with poor infection control. Clear gaps exist in the literature, and further research is warranted to evaluate treatment strategies for infected ankle prosthesis.
人工关节感染(PJI)是全踝关节置换(TAR)后一种具有挑战性的并发症,通常需要清创和保留假体(DAIR),同时或不更换聚乙烯衬垫,进行翻修手术,植入骨水泥间隔器,转换为融合,甚至截肢。对于踝关节 PJI 的最佳治疗方法尚未确定。我们进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,以比较各种治疗策略对感染性踝关节假体的临床疗效。我们检索了 MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science 和 Cochrane 图书馆,截至 2018 年 12 月,评估了 TAR 后感染性踝关节假体患者人群中治疗的影响。对二项数据进行反正弦变换后进行汇总。纳入了 6 项包含 17 项观察性设计比较的文献。DAIR 加或不加聚乙烯衬垫、1 期翻修、2 期翻修、骨水泥间隔器和融合的再感染率(95%置信区间)分别为 39.8%(24.4 至 56.1)、0.0%(0.0 至 78.7)、0.0%(0.0 至 8.5)、0.2%(0.0 至 17.9)和 13.6%(0.0 至 45.8)。DAIR 加或不加聚乙烯衬垫和骨水泥间隔器的截肢率分别为 5.6%(0.0 至 16.9)和 22.2%(6.3 至 54.7)。由于数据有限,无法比较功能、疼痛和满意度的测量结果。1 期和 2 期翻修策略似乎与最低的再感染率相关,但这些发现基于有限的数据。融合和 DAIR 加或不加聚乙烯衬垫似乎常用于治疗感染性踝关节假体,但感染控制效果较差。文献中存在明显的差距,需要进一步研究来评估感染性踝关节假体的治疗策略。