Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are dreaded complications of total joint arthroplasties. The risk of developing PJIs is likely to be influenced by several patient factors such as ...sociodemographic characteristics, body mass index (BMI), and medical and surgical histories. However, the nature and magnitude of the long-term longitudinal associations between these patient-related factors and risk of developing PJIs are uncertain.
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the associations between several patient-related factors and PJI.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant studies from inception to September 2015.
Longitudinal studies with at least one-year of follow-up for PJIs after total joint arthroplasty.
Two investigators extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. A consensus was reached with involvement of a third. The relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals was used as the summary measure of association across studies. Study-specific RRs with 95% confidence intervals were meta-analysed using random effect models and were grouped by study-level characteristics.
Sixty-six observational (23 prospective cohort and 43 retrospective cohort or case-control) studies with data on 512,508 participants were included. Comparing males to females and smokers to non-smokers, the pooled RRs for PJI were 1.36 (1.18-1.57) and 1.83 (1.24-2.70) respectively. There was no evidence of any significant associations of PJI with age and high alcohol intake. Comparing BMI ≥ 30 versus < 30 kg/m(2); ≥ 35 versus < 35 kg/m(2); and ≥ 40 versus < 40 kg/m(2); the pooled RRs were 1.60 (1.29-1.99); 1.53 (1.22-1.92); and 3.68 (2.25-6.01) respectively. Histories of diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, depression, steroid use, and previous joint surgery were also associated with increased risk of PJI. The results remained similar when grouped by relevant study level characteristics.
Several potentially modifiable patient-related factors are associated with the risk of developing PJIs. Identifying patients with these risk factors who are due to have arthroplasty surgery and modulating these risk factors might be essential in reducing the incidence of PJI. Further research is however warranted to assess the potential clinical utility of these risk factors as risk assessment tools for PJI.
PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015023485.
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.
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.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, reference lists of relevant studies to August 2015, and correspondence with investigators.
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.
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.
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.
Potential bias owing to the limited number of one-stage revision studies and inability to explore heterogeneity in greater detail.
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.
PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015017327.
The two-stage revision strategy has been claimed as being the "gold standard" for treating prosthetic joint infection. The one-stage revision strategy remains an attractive alternative option; ...however, its effectiveness in comparison to the two-stage strategy remains uncertain.
To compare the effectiveness of one- and two-stage revision strategies in treating prosthetic hip infection, using re-infection as an outcome.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, manual search of bibliographies to March 2015, and email contact with investigators.
Cohort studies (prospective or retrospective) conducted in generally unselected patients with prosthetic hip infection treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and with re-infection outcomes reported within two years of revision. No clinical trials were identified.
Data were extracted by two independent investigators and a consensus was reached with involvement of a third. Rates of re-infection from 38 one-stage studies (2,536 participants) and 60 two-stage studies (3,288 participants) were aggregated using random-effect models after arcsine transformation, and were grouped by study and population level characteristics.
In one-stage studies, the rate (95% confidence intervals) of re-infection was 8.2% (6.0-10.8). The corresponding re-infection rate after two-stage revision was 7.9% (6.2-9.7). Re-infection rates remained generally similar when grouped by several study and population level characteristics. There was no strong evidence of publication bias among contributing studies.
Evidence from aggregate published data suggest similar re-infection rates after one- or two-stage revision among unselected patients. More detailed analyses under a broader range of circumstances and exploration of other sources of heterogeneity will require collaborative pooling of individual participant data.
PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015016559.
Patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) receive venous thromboembolism (VTE) pharmacoprophylaxis. It is unclear which anticoagulant is preferable. ...Observational data suggest aspirin provides effective VTE prophylaxis.
To assess the effectiveness and safety of aspirin for VTE prophylaxis after THR and TKR.
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), with no language restrictions, from inception to September 19, 2019, using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and bibliographic searches. The computer-based searches combined terms and combinations of keywords related to the population (eg, hip replacement, knee replacement, hip arthroplasty, and knee arthroplasty), drug intervention (eg, aspirin, heparin, clexane, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin), and outcome (eg, venous thromboembolism, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and bleeding) in humans.
This study included RCTs assessing the effectiveness and safety of aspirin for VTE prophylaxis compared with other anticoagulants in adults undergoing THR and TKR. The RCTs with a placebo control group were excluded. The searches and study selection were independently performed.
This study followed PRISMA recommendations and used the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Data were screened and extracted independently by both reviewers. Study-specific relative risks (RRs) were aggregated using random-effects models. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
The primary outcome was any postoperative VTE (asymptomatic or symptomatic). Secondary outcomes were adverse events associated with therapy, including bleeding.
Of 437 identified articles, 13 RCTs were included (6060 participants; 3466 57.2% women; mean age, 63.0 years). The RR of VTE after THR and TKR was 1.12 (95% CI, 0.78-1.62) for aspirin compared with other anticoagulants. Comparable findings were observed for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72-1.51) and pulmonary embolism (PE) (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.68-1.48). The risk of adverse events, including major bleeding, wound hematoma, and wound infection, was not statistically significantly different in patients receiving aspirin vs other anticoagulants. When analyzing THRs and TKRs separately, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of VTE, DVT, and PE between aspirin and other anticoagulants. Aspirin had a VTE risk not statistically significantly different from low-molecular-weight heparin (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.37-1.56) or rivaroxaban (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.56-4.12). The quality of the evidence ranged from low to high.
In terms of clinical effectiveness and safety profile, aspirin did not differ statistically significantly from other anticoagulants used for VTE prophylaxis after THR and TKR. Future trials should focus on noninferiority analysis of aspirin compared with alternative anticoagulants and cost-effectiveness.
Total hip replacement is a common and highly effective operation. All hip replacements would eventually fail if in situ long enough and it is important that patients understand when this might ...happen. We aimed to answer the question: how long does a hip replacement last?
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis with a search of MEDLINE and Embase from the start of records to Sept 12, 2017. We included articles reporting 15-year survival of primary, conventional total hip replacement constructs in patients with osteoarthritis. We extracted survival and implant data and used all-cause construct survival as the primary outcome. We also reviewed reports of national joint replacement registries, and extracted data for a separate analysis. In the meta-analyses, we weighted each series and calculated a pooled survival estimate for each source of data. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018085642).
We identified 140 eligible articles reporting 150 series, and included 44 of these series (13 212 total hip placements). National joint replacement registries from Australia and Finland provided data for 92 series (215 676 total hip replacements). The 25-year pooled survival of hip replacements from case series was 77·6% (95% CI 76·0–79·2) and from joint replacement registries was 57·9% (95% CI 57·1–58·7).
Assuming that estimates from national registries are less likely to be biased, patients and surgeons can expect a hip replacement to last 25 years in around 58% of patients.
National Institute for Health Research, National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man, and The Royal College of Surgeons of England.
Knee replacements are the mainstay of treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis and are effective. Given time, all knee replacements will fail and knowing when this failure might happen is important. We ...aimed to establish how long a knee replacement lasts.
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for case series and cohort studies published from database inception until July 21, 2018. Articles reporting 15 year or greater survival of primary total knee replacement (TKR), unicondylar knee replacement (UKR), and patellofemoral replacements in patients with osteoarthritis were included. Articles that reviewed specifically complex primary surgeries or revisions were excluded. Survival and implant data were extracted, with all-cause survival of the knee replacement construct being the primary outcome. We also reviewed national joint replacement registry reports and extracted the data to be analysed separately. In the meta-analysis, we weighted each series and calculated a pooled survival estimate for each data source at 15 years, 20 years, and 25 years, using a fixed-effects model. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018105188.
From 4363 references found by our initial search, we identified 33 case series in 30 eligible articles, which reported all-cause survival for 6490 TKRs (26 case series) and 742 UKRs (seven case series). No case series reporting on patellofemoral replacements met our inclusion criteria, and no case series reported 25 year survival for TKR. The estimated 25 year survival for UKR (based on one case series) was 72·0% (95% CI 58·0–95·0). Registries contributed 299 291 TKRs (47 series) and 7714 UKRs (five series). The pooled registry 25 year survival of TKRs (14 registries) was 82·3% (95% CI 81·3–83·2) and of UKRs (four registries) was 69·8% (67·6–72·1).
Our pooled registry data, which we believe to be more accurate than the case series data, shows that approximately 82% of TKRs last 25 years and 70% of UKRs last 25 years. These findings will be of use to patients and health-care providers; further information is required to predict exactly how long specific knee replacements will last.
The National Institute for Health Research, the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Isle of Man, and the Royal College of Surgeons of England.
•DAIR is an effective option for the treatment of PJI following joint arthroplasty.•DAIR is particularly efficacious in treating acute postoperative infections.•DAIR is also effective for infections ...of the hip and shoulder joints.•Shorter duration of parenteral antibiotics may be related to good infection control.
We aimed to assess infection control rates after DAIR in patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following joint arthroplasty and evaluate factors associated with infection control using a systematic review and meta-analysis.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane databases and reference lists of relevant studies up to May 2017. Longitudinal studies conducted in patients with PJI treated exclusively by DAIR were eligible. Infection control rates were meta-analysed using random-effect models after arcsine transformation.
We included 93 articles based on 99 unique observational studies with data on 4897 PJIs treated by DAIR. The infection control rate for DAIR ranged from 11.1% to 100% with an overall pooled estimate of 61.4% (95% CI, 57.3–65.4) and a 95% prediction interval of 25.5% to 91.8%. Infection control rates remained generally similar for several relevant characteristics, except for evidence of variation by age, geographical location, type of infection and joint affected, duration of parenteral antibiotic therapy after the DAIR procedure, and period (year) of DAIR procedure.
The DAIR approach remains an option for the treatment of PJI as it is associated with acceptable infection control rates, particularly in acute postoperative infections and infections of the hip and shoulder joints.
Deep prosthetic hip infection is a devastating complication of hip replacement surgery, and treatment often involves multiple revision surgeries with antibiotic chemotherapy to control the infection. ...The aim of this study was to explore patients' experiences of early and longer-term recovery after one-stage or two-stage revision with an excised hip, a temporary cement spacer or a custom-made articulating spacer. We interviewed 32 participants taking part in a surgical trial at two time points (2-4 months and 18 months) following one- or two-stage revision surgery. The analytic approach was inductive using the constant comparative method to generate themes from the data. Participants' early recovery after revision was characterised by a long hospital stay with burdensome antibiotics and limited physiotherapy provision. Participants undergoing two-stage revision with an excised hip or a cement spacer described severe mobility restrictions which affected all aspects of their lives, while those undergoing one-stage revision, or two-stage revision with an articulating spacer were more mobile and independent, with some limitations. Participants with a cement spacer also reported more pain than other treatment groups, while those with an articulating spacer appeared to perceive that their recovery was slow. At 18 months, participants in all groups described both improvements and losses in mobility and functional ability. Participants in all treatment groups expressed considerable emotional resilience during recovery from revision, which may be linked to opportunities to talk with the trial personnel. Participants identified the need for better information and psychological and physical support. Experience of recovery differs after one- and two-stage revision, and further in relation to the use of spacers. Mobility, function, independence and pain are important aspects of recovery which affect all aspects of day-to-day life. Increased information and more opportunities to talk and share experiences may provide psychological support during recovery.
Prosthetic joint infection is a devastating complication of knee replacement. The risk of developing a prosthetic joint infection is affected by patient, surgical, and health-care system factors. ...Existing evidence is limited by heterogeneity in populations studied, short follow-up, inadequate power, and does not differentiate early prosthetic joint infection, most likely related to the intervention, from late infection, more likely to occur due to haematogenous bacterial spread. We aimed to assess the overall and time-specific associations of these factors with the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection following primary knee replacement.
In this cohort study, we analysed primary knee replacements done between 2003 and 2013 in England and Wales and the procedures subsequently revised for prosthetic joint infection between 2003 and 2014. Data were obtained from the National Joint Registry linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics data in England and the Patient Episode Database for Wales. Each primary replacement was followed for a minimum of 12 months until the end of the observation period (Dec 31, 2014) or until the date of revision for prosthetic joint infection, revision for another indication, or death (whichever occurred first). We analysed the data using Poisson and piecewise exponential multilevel models to assess the associations between patient, surgical, and health-care system factors and risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection.
Of 679 010 primary knee replacements done between 2003 and 2013 in England and Wales, 3659 were subsequently revised for an indication of prosthetic joint infection between 2003 and 2014, after a median follow-up of 4·6 years (IQR 2·6–6·9). Male sex (rate ratio RR for male vs female patients 1·8 95% CI 1·7–2·0), younger age (RR for age ≥80 years vs <60 years 0·5 0·4–0·6), higher American Society of Anaesthesiologists ASA grade (RR for ASA grade 3–5 vs 1, 1·8 1·6–2·1), elevated body-mass index (BMI; RR for BMI ≥30 kg/m2vs <25 kg/m2 1·5 1·3–1·6), chronic pulmonary disease (RR 1·2 1·1–1·3), diabetes (RR 1·4 1·2–1·5), liver disease (RR 2·2 1·6–2·9), connective tissue and rheumatic diseases (RR 1·5 1·3–1·7), peripheral vascular disease (RR 1·4 1·1–1·7), surgery for trauma (RR 1·9 1·4–2·6), previous septic arthritis (RR 4·9 2·7–7·6) or inflammatory arthropathy (RR 1·4 1·2–1·7), operation under general anaesthesia (RR 1·1 1·0–1·2), requirement for tibial bone graft (RR 2·0 1·3–2·7), use of posterior stabilised fixed bearing prostheses (RR for posterior stabilised fixed bearing prostheses vs unconstrained fixed bearing prostheses 1·4 1·3–1·5) or constrained condylar prostheses (3·5 2·5–4·7) were associated with a higher risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection. However, uncemented total, patellofemoral, or unicondylar knee replacement (RR for uncemented vs cemented total knee replacement 0·7 95% CI 0·6–0·8, RR for patellofemoral vs cemented total knee replacement 0·3 0·2–0·5, and RR for unicondylar vs cemented total knee replacement 0·5 0·5–0·6) were associated with lower risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection. Most of these factors had time-specific effects, depending on the time period post-surgery.
We have identified several risk factors for revision for prosthetic joint infection following knee replacement. Some of these factors are modifiable, and the use of targeted interventions or strategies could lead to a reduced risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection. Non-modifiable factors and the time-specific nature of the effects we have observed will allow clinicians to appropriately counsel patients preoperatively and tailor follow-up regimens.
National Institute for Health Research.
The risk of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is influenced by patient, surgical, and health-care factors. Existing evidence is based on short-term follow-up. It does not differentiate between factors ...associated with early onset caused by the primary intervention from those associated with later onset more likely to result from haematogenous spread. We aimed to assess the overall and time-specific associations of these factors with the risk of revision due to PJI after primary total hip replacement.
We did a prospective observational cohort study analysing 623 253 primary hip procedures performed between April 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2013, in England and Wales and recorded the number of procedures revised because of PJI. We investigated the associations between risk factors and risk of revision for PJI across the overall follow-up period using Poisson multilevel models. We reinvestigated the associations by post-operative time periods (0–3 months, 3–6 months, 6–12 months, 12–24 months, >24 months) using piece-wise exponential multilevel models with period-specific effects. Data were obtained from the National Joint Registry linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics data.
2705 primary procedures were subsequently revised for an indication of PJI between 2003 and 2014, after a median (IQR) follow up of 4·6 years (2·6–7·0). Among the factors associated with an increased revision due to PJI there were male sex (1462 1·2‰ of 1 237 170 male-years vs 1243 0·7‰ of 1 849 691 female-years; rate ratio RR 1·7 95% CI 1·6–1·8), younger age (739 1·1‰ of 688 000 person-years <60 years vs 242 0·6‰ of 387 049 person-years ≥80 years; 0·7 0·6–0·8), elevated body-mass index (BMI; 941 1·8‰ 517 278 person-years with a BMI ≥30 kg/m2vs 272 0·9‰ of 297 686 person-years with a BMI <25 kg/m2; 1·9 1·7–2·2), diabetes (245 1·4‰ 178 381 person-years with diabetes vs 2120 1·0‰ of 2 209 507 person-years without diabetes; 1·4 1·2–1·5), dementia (5 10·1‰ of 497 person-years with dementia at 3 months vs 311 2·6‰ of 120 850 person-years without dementia; 3·8 1·2–7·8), previous septic arthritis (22 7·2‰ of 3055 person-years with previous infection vs 2683 0·9‰ of 3 083 806 person-years without previous infection; 6·7 4·2–9·8), fractured neck of femur (66 1·5‰ of 43 378 person-years operated for a fractured neck of femur vs 2639 0·9‰ of 3 043 483 person-years without a fractured neck of femur; 1·8 1·4–2·3); and use of the lateral surgical approach (1334 1·0‰ of 1 399 287 person-years for lateral vs 1242 0·8 ‰ of 1 565 913 person-years for posterior; 1·3 1·2–1·4). Use of ceramic rather than metal bearings was associated with a decreased risk of revision for PJI (94 0·4‰ of 239 512 person-years with ceramic-on-ceramic bearings vs 602 0·5‰ of 1 114 239 peron-years with metal-on-polyethylene bearings at ≥24 months; RR 0·6 0·4–0·7; and 82 0·4‰ of 190 884 person-years with ceramic-on-polyethyene bearings vs metal-on-polyethylene bearings at ≥24 months; 0·7 0·5–0·9). Most of these factors had time-specific effects. The risk of revision for PJI was marginally or not influenced by the grade of the operating surgeon, the absence of a consultant surgeon during surgey, and the volume of procedures performed by hospital or surgeon.
Several modifiable and non-modifiable factors are associated with the risk of revision for PJI after primary hip replacement. Identification of modifiable factors, use of targeted interventions, and beneficial modulation of some of these factors could be effective in reducing the incidence of PJI. It is important for clinicians to consider non-modifiable factors and factors that exhibit time-specific effects on the risk of PJI to counsel patients appropriately preoperatively.
National Institute for Health Research.
PDF
