Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review

D. A. George, Nicola Logoluso, Greta Castellini, Silvia Gianola, Sara Scarponi, F. S. Haddad, Lorenzo Drago, Carlo L Romanò

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: The best surgical modality for treating chronic periprosthetic hip infections remains controversial, with a lack of randomised controlled studies. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the infection recurrence rate after a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange arthroplasty, and the rate of cemented versus cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic hip infections. Methods: We searched for eligible studies published up to December 2015. Full text or abstract in English were reviewed. We included studies reporting the infection recurrence rate as the outcome of interest following single- or two-stage exchange arthroplasty, or both, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and appraised quality assessment. Results: After study selection, 90 observational studies were included. The majority of studies were focused on a two-stage hip exchange arthroplasty (65 %), 18 % on a single-stage exchange, and only a 17 % were comparative studies. There was no statistically significant difference between a single-stage versus a two-stage exchange in terms of recurrence of infection in controlled studies (pooled odds ratio of 1.37 [95 % CI = 0.68-2.74, I2 = 45.5 %]). Similarly, the recurrence infection rate in cementless versus cemented single-stage hip exchanges failed to demonstrate a significant difference, due to the substantial heterogeneity among the studies. Conclusion: Despite the methodological limitations and the heterogeneity between single cohorts studies, if we considered only the available controlled studies no superiority was demonstrated between a single- and two-stage exchange at a minimum of 12 months follow-up. The overalapping of confidence intervals related to single-stage cementless and cemented hip exchanges, showed no superiority of either technique.

Original languageEnglish
Article number553
JournalBMC Infectious Diseases
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 10 2016

Keywords

  • Cemented
  • Cementless
  • Exchange arthroplasty
  • Infection
  • Periprosthetic hip infections
  • Single-stage
  • Two-stage

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Infectious Diseases

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this