The Library
A systematic review of the evidence for single stage and two stage revision of infected knee replacement
Tools
Tools
Tools
Masters, James P. M., Smith, Nicholas A., Foguet, Pedro, Reed, Mike R., Parsons, Helen and Sprowson, Andrew P. (2013) A systematic review of the evidence for single stage and two stage revision of infected knee replacement. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, Volume 14 (Number 1). p. 222. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-222
|
Text
WRAP_Masters_1471-2474-14-222.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.. Download (662Kb) | Preview |
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-222
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Periprosthetic infection about the knee is a devastating complication that may affect between 1% and 5% of knee replacement. With over 79 000 knee replacements being implanted each year in the UK, periprosthetic infection (PJI) is set to become an important burden of disease and cost to the healthcare economy. One of the important controversies in treatment of PJI is whether a single stage revision operation is superior to a two-stage procedure. This study sought to systematically evaluate the published evidence to determine which technique had lowest reinfection rates.
METHODS:
A systematic review of the literature was undertaken using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases with the aim to identify existing studies that present the outcomes of each surgical technique. Reinfection rate was the primary outcome measure. Studies of specific subsets of patients such as resistant organisms were excluded.
RESULTS:
63 studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The majority of which (58) were reports of two-stage revision. Reinfection rated varied between 0% and 41% in two-stage studies, and 0% and 11% in single stage studies. No clinical trials were identified and the majority of studies were observational studies.
CONCLUSIONS:
Evidence for both one-stage and two-stage revision is largely of low quality. The evidence basis for two-stage revision is significantly larger, and further work into direct comparison between the two techniques should be undertaken as a priority.
| Item Type: | Journal Article | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects: | R Medicine > R Medicine (General) Z Bibliography. Library Science. Information Resources > ZA Information resources |
||||
| Divisions: | Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School | ||||
| Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): | Arthroplasty, Knee -- Surgery, Infection, Systematic reviews (Medical research), Evidence-based medicine | ||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | ||||
| Publisher: | Biomed central | ||||
| ISSN: | 1471-2474 | ||||
| Official Date: | 29 July 2013 | ||||
| Dates: |
|
||||
| Volume: | Volume 14 | ||||
| Number: | Number 1 | ||||
| Page Range: | p. 222 | ||||
| DOI: | 10.1186/1471-2474-14-222 | ||||
| Status: | Peer Reviewed | ||||
| Publication Status: | Published | ||||
| Access rights to Published version: | Open Access |
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
