Re-Infection Outcomes following One- and Two-Stage Surgical Revision of Infected Hip Prosthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PLoS One. 2015 Sep 25;10(9):e0139166. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139166. eCollection 2015.

Abstract

Background: 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.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of one- and two-stage revision strategies in treating prosthetic hip infection, using re-infection as an outcome.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, manual search of bibliographies to March 2015, and email contact with investigators.

Study selection: 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.

Review methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusion: 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.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015016559.

Publication types

  • Meta-Analysis
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Review
  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip / adverse effects
  • Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip / methods
  • Hip Prosthesis / adverse effects*
  • Hip Prosthesis / microbiology
  • Humans
  • Prosthesis-Related Infections / surgery*
  • Recurrence
  • Reoperation / adverse effects*
  • Reoperation / methods
  • Reoperation / statistics & numerical data
  • Treatment Outcome