-
PloS One 2018In orthognathic surgery, antibiotics are prescribed to reduce the risk of postoperative infection. However, there is lack of consensus over the appropriate drug, the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
In orthognathic surgery, antibiotics are prescribed to reduce the risk of postoperative infection. However, there is lack of consensus over the appropriate drug, the dose and duration of administration. The aim of this complex systematic review was to assess the effect of antibiotics on postoperative infections in orthognathic surgery.
METHODS
Both systematic reviews and primary studies were assessed. Medline (OVID), The Cochrane Library (Wiley) and EMBASE (embase.com), PubMed (non-indexed articles) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publications were searched. The primary studies were assessed using GRADE and the systematic reviews by AMSTAR.
RESULTS
Screening of abstracts yielded 6 systematic reviews and 36 primary studies warranting full text scrutiny. In total,14 primary studies were assessed for risk of bias. Assessment of the included systematic reviews identified two studies with a moderate risk of bias, due to inclusion in the meta-analyses of primary studies with a high risk of bias. Quality assessment of the primary studies disclosed one with a moderate risk of bias and one with a low risk. The former compared a single dose of antibiotic with 24 hour prophylaxis using the same antibiotic; the latter compared oral and intravenous administration of antibiotics. Given the limited number of acceptable studies, no statistical analysis was undertaken, as it was unlikely to contribute any relevant information.
CONCLUSION
With respect to antibiotic prophylaxis in orthognathic surgery, most of the studies to date have been poorly conducted and reported. Thus scientific uncertainty remains as to the preferred antibiotic and the optimal duration of administration.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Humans; Orthognathic Surgical Procedures; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 29385159
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191161 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Feb 2013The analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single perioperative dose of dexamethasone are unclear. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the impact of a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single perioperative dose of dexamethasone are unclear. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the impact of a single i.v. dose of dexamethasone on postoperative pain and explore adverse events associated with this treatment.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Register were searched for randomized, controlled studies that compared dexamethasone vs placebo or an antiemetic in adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia and reported pain outcomes.
RESULTS
Forty-five studies involving 5796 patients receiving dexamethasone 1.25-20 mg were included. Patients receiving dexamethasone had lower pain scores at 2 h {mean difference (MD) -0.49 [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.83, -0.15]} and 24 h [MD -0.48 (95% CI: -0.62, -0.35)] after surgery. Dexamethasone-treated patients used less opioids at 2 h [MD -0.87 mg morphine equivalents (95% CI: -1.40 to -0.33)] and 24 h [MD -2.33 mg morphine equivalents (95% CI: -4.39, -0.26)], required less rescue analgesia for intolerable pain [relative risk 0.80 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.93)], had longer time to first dose of analgesic [MD 12.06 min (95% CI: 0.80, 23.32)], and shorter stays in the post-anaesthesia care unit [MD -5.32 min (95% CI: -10.49 to -0.15)]. There was no dose-response with regard to the opioid-sparing effect. There was no increase in infection or delayed wound healing with dexamethasone, but blood glucose levels were higher at 24 h [MD 0.39 mmol litre(-1) (95% CI: 0.04, 0.74)].
CONCLUSIONS
A single i.v. perioperative dose of dexamethasone had small but statistically significant analgesic benefits.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthesia Recovery Period; Anesthesia, General; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Confidence Intervals; Dexamethasone; Endpoint Determination; Female; Humans; Male; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Risk; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23220857
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aes431 -
Anesthesiology Jan 2023Intraoperative supplemental oxygen may reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting by mitigating hypoxic stress on the gastrointestinal tract. The authors therefore tested... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intraoperative supplemental oxygen may reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting by mitigating hypoxic stress on the gastrointestinal tract. The authors therefore tested the hypothesis that supplemental oxygen reduces nausea and vomiting in adults recovering from colorectal surgery at the Cleveland Clinic between January 28, 2013, and March 11, 2016.
METHODS
Initially, the authors conducted an unplanned subanalysis of a previous trial that evaluated the effect of 80% versus 30% intraoperative inspired oxygen on surgical site infection. Specifically, they assessed the effect of 80% versus 30% oxygen concentration on the incidence of postoperative nausea and/or vomiting. Thereafter, the authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of supplemental oxygen on postoperative nausea and vomiting.
RESULTS
The authors' underlying analysis included 5,057 colorectal surgeries on 4,001 patients. For 2,554 surgeries, assignment was to 80% oxygen, and in 2,503 surgeries, to 30%. Postoperative nausea and vomiting was 852 of 2,554 (33%) in 80% oxygen and 814 of 2,503 (33%) in 30% oxygen. The estimated relative risk (95% CI) of 80% versus 30% oxygen on postoperative nausea and vomiting was 1.04 (0.96 to 1.12) in a generalized estimating equation model adjusting for within-patient correlation for patients with multiple surgeries, P = 0.355. Furthermore, supplemental oxygen did not reduce antiemetic use (P = 0.911) or the severity of nausea and vomiting (P = 0.924). The authors' meta-analysis included 10 qualifying trials (6,749 patients) and did not find a difference in postoperative nausea and vomiting: relative risk, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.86 to 1.08], P = 0.55, I2 = 52%.
CONCLUSIONS
The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting did not differ in patients assigned to 80% or 30% inspired oxygen. A meta-analysis of available trials similarly indicated that supplemental intraoperative oxygen does not reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting. Therefore, supplemental oxygen should not be given in the expectation that it will reduce nausea and vomiting.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Antiemetics; Surgical Wound Infection; Oxygen; Risk
PubMed: 36480644
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000004428 -
Systematic Reviews Jul 2023Voiding trials are used to identify women at risk for postoperative urinary retention while performing optimal voiding trial management with minimal burden to the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Voiding trials are used to identify women at risk for postoperative urinary retention while performing optimal voiding trial management with minimal burden to the patient and medical service team. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative void trials following urogynecologic surgery to investigate (1) the optimal postoperative void trial methodology and (2) the optimal criteria for assessing void trial.
METHOD
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and relevant reference lists of eligible articles from inception to April 2022. We identified any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in English that studied void trials in patients undergoing urogynecologic surgery. Study selection (title/abstract and full text), data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers. Extracted study outcomes included the following: the correct passing rate, time to discharge, discharge rate without a catheter after the initial void trial, postoperative urinary tract infection, and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS
Void trial methodology included backfill-assisted and autofill studies (2 RCTs, n = 95). Backfill assistance was more likely to be successful than autofill (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.29, 3.47, P = 0.00); however, no significant difference was found in the time to discharge (WMDs = - 29.11 min, 95% CI - 57.45, 1.23, P = 0.06). The criteria for passing void trial included subjective assessment of the urinary force of stream and objective assessment of the standard voiding trial (3 RCTs, n = 377). No significant differences were found in the correct passing rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93, 1.01, P = 0.14) or void trial failure rate (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.52, 1.18, P = 0.24). Moreover, no significant differences were found in the complication rates or patient satisfaction between the two criteria.
CONCLUSION
Bladder backfilling was associated with a lower rate of catheter discharge after urogynecologic surgery. The subjective assessment of FOS is a reliable and safe method for assessing postoperative voiding because it is less invasive.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42022313397.
Topics: Female; Humans; Urination; Urinary Tract Infections; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37420310
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02233-1 -
BMC Surgery May 2020Despite being a preventable complication of surgical procedures, surgical site infections (SSIs) continue to threaten public health with significant impacts on the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite being a preventable complication of surgical procedures, surgical site infections (SSIs) continue to threaten public health with significant impacts on the patients and the health-care human and financial resources. With millions affected globally, there is significant variation in the primary studies on the prevalence of SSIs in Ethiopia. Therefore, this study aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of SSI and its associated factors among postoperative patients in Ethiopia.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Psyinfo, African Journals Online, and Google Scholar were searched for studies that looked at SSI in postoperative patients. A funnel plot and Egger's regression test were used to determine publication bias. The I statistic was used to check heterogeneity between the studies. DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was applied to estimate the pooled effect size, odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence interval (CIs) across studies. The subgroup analysis was conducted by region, sample size, and year of publication. Sensitivity analysis was deployed to determine the effect of a single study on the overall estimation. Analysis was done using STATA™ Version 14 software.
RESULT
A total of 24 studies with 13,136 study participants were included in this study. The estimated pooled prevalence of SSI in Ethiopia was 12.3% (95% CI: 10.19, 14.42). Duration of surgery > 1 h (AOR = 1.78; 95% CI: 1.08-2.94), diabetes mellitus (AOR = 3.25; 95% CI: 1.51-6.99), American Society of Anaesthesiologists score > 1 (AOR = 2.51; 95% CI: 1.07-5.91), previous surgery (AOR = 2.5; 95% CI: 1.77-3.53), clean-contaminated wound (AOR = 2.15; 95% CI: 1.52-3.04), and preoperative hospital stay > 7 day (AOR = 5.76; 95% CI: 1.15-28.86), were significantly associated with SSI.
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of SSI among postoperative patients in Ethiopia remains high with a pooled prevalence of 12.3% in 24 extracted studies. Therefore, situation based interventions and region context-specific preventive strategies should be developed to reduce the prevalence of SSI among postoperative patients.
Topics: Ethiopia; Humans; Odds Ratio; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 32423397
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-020-00764-1 -
Journal of Dental Research Sep 2014The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate whether there are any effects of diabetes mellitus on implant failure rates, postoperative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate whether there are any effects of diabetes mellitus on implant failure rates, postoperative infections, and marginal bone loss. An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in March 2014. The present review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies. The search strategy resulted in 14 publications. The I (2) statistic was used to express the percentage of total variation across studies due to heterogeneity. The inverse variance method was used for the random effects model when heterogeneity was detected or for the fixed effects model when heterogeneity was not detected. The estimates of an intervention for dichotomous outcomes were expressed in risk ratio and in mean difference in millimeters for continuous outcomes, both with a 95% confidence interval. There was a statistically significant difference (p = .001; mean difference = 0.20, 95% confidence interval = 0.08, 0.31) between diabetic and non-diabetic patients concerning marginal bone loss, favoring non-diabetic patients. A meta-analysis was not possible for postoperative infections. The difference between the patients (diabetic vs. non-diabetic) did not significantly affect implant failure rates (p = .65), with a risk ratio of 1.07 (95% confidence interval = 0.80, 1.44). Studies are lacking that include both patient types, with larger sample sizes, and that report the outcome data separately for each group. The results of the present meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution because of the presence of uncontrolled confounding factors in the included studies.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Diabetes Complications; Humans; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 24928096
DOI: 10.1177/0022034514538820 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Elective hysterectomy is commonly performed for benign gynaecological conditions. Hysterectomy can be performed abdominally, laparoscopically, or vaginally, with or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Elective hysterectomy is commonly performed for benign gynaecological conditions. Hysterectomy can be performed abdominally, laparoscopically, or vaginally, with or without laparoscopic assistance. Antibiotic prophylaxis consists of administration of antibiotics to reduce the rate of postoperative infection, which otherwise affects 40%-50% of women after vaginal hysterectomy, and more than 20% after abdominal hysterectomy. No Cochrane review has systematically assessed evidence on this topic.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in women undergoing elective hysterectomy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched electronic databases to November 2016 (including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), as well as clinical trials registers, conference abstracts, and reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing use of antibiotics versus placebo or other antibiotics as prophylaxis in women undergoing elective hysterectomy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used Cochrane standard methodological procedures.
MAIN RESULTS
We included in this review 37 RCTs, which performed 20 comparisons of various antibiotics versus placebo and versus one another (6079 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations of study findings were risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, imprecision due to small samples and low event rates, and inadequate reporting of adverse effects. Any antibiotic versus placebo Vaginal hysterectomyModerate-quality evidence shows that women who received antibiotic prophylaxis had fewer total postoperative infections (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.40; five RCTs, N = 610; I = 85%), less urinary tract infection (UTI) (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; eight RCTs, N = 1790; I = 44%), fewer pelvic infections (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.39; 11 RCTs, N = 2010; I = 57%), and fewer postoperative fevers (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.54; nine RCTs, N = 1879; I = 48%) than women who did not receive such prophylaxis. This suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the average risk of postoperative infection from about 34% to 7% to 14%. Whether this treatment has led to differences in rates of other serious infection remains unclear (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.10; one RCT, N = 146; very low-quality evidence).Data were insufficient for comparison of adverse effects. Abdominal hysterectomyWomen who received antibiotic prophylaxis of any class had fewer total postoperative infections (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.38; one RCT, N = 345; low-quality evidence), abdominal wound infections (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.92; 11 RCTs, N = 2434; I = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), UTIs (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.51; 11 RCTs, N = 2547; I = 26%; moderate-quality evidence), pelvic infections (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.71; 11 RCTs, N = 1883; I = 11%; moderate-quality evidence), and postoperative fevers (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.70; 11 RCTs, N = 2581; I = 51%; moderate-quality evidence) than women who did not receive prophylaxis, suggesting that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the average risk of postoperative infection from about 16% to 1% to 6%. Whether this treatment has led to differences in rates of other serious infection remains unclear (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.69; two RCTs, N = 476; I = 29%; very low-quality evidence).It is unclear whether rates of adverse effects differed between groups (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 5.18; two RCTs, N = 430; I = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Head-to-head comparisons between antibiotics Vaginal hysterectomyWe identified four comparisons: cephalosporin versus penicillin (two RCTs, N = 470), cephalosporin versus tetracycline (one RCT, N = 51), antiprotozoal versus lincosamide (one RCT, N = 80), and cephalosporin versus antiprotozoal (one RCT, N = 78). Data show no evidence of differences between groups for any of the primary outcomes, except that fewer cases of total postoperative infection and postoperative fever were reported in women who received cephalosporin than in those who received antiprotozoal.Only one comparison (cephalosporin vs penicillin; two RCTs, N = 451) yielded data on adverse effects and showed no differences between groups. Abdominal hysterectomyWe identified only one comparison: cephalosporin versus penicillin (N = 220). Data show no evidence of differences between groups for any of the primary outcomes. Adverse effects were not reported. Combined antibiotics versus single antibiotics Vaginal hysterectomyWe identified three comparisons: cephalosporin plus antiprotozoal versus cephalosporin (one RCT, N = 78), cephalosporin plus antiprotozoal versus antiprotozoal (one RCT, N = 78), and penicillin plus antiprotozoal versus penicillin (one RCT, N = 230). Data were unavailable for most outcomes, including adverse effects. We found no evidence of differences between groups, except that fewer women receiving cephalosporin with antiprotozoal received a diagnosis of total postoperative infection, UTI, or postoperative fever compared with women receiving antiprotozoal. Abdominal hysterectomyWe identified one comparison (penicillin plus antiprotozoal vs penicillin only; one RCT, N = 230). Whether differences between groups occurred was unclear. Adverse effects were not reported. Comparison of cephalosporins in different regimensSingle small trials addressed dose comparisons and provided no data for most outcomes, including adverse effects. Whether differences between groups occurred was unclear. No trials compared route of administration.The quality of evidence for all head-to-head and dose comparisons was very low owing to very serious imprecision and serious risk of bias related to poor reporting of methods.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotic prophylaxis appears to be effective in preventing postoperative infection in women undergoing elective vaginal or abdominal hysterectomy, regardless of the dose regimen. However, evidence is insufficient to show whether use of prophylactic antibiotics influences rates of adverse effects. Similarly, evidence is insufficient to show which (if any) individual antibiotic, dose regimen, or route of administration is safest and most effective. The most recent studies included in this review were 14 years old at the time of our search. Thus findings from included studies may not reflect current practice in perioperative and postoperative care and may not show locoregional antimicrobial resistance patterns.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Antiprotozoal Agents; Bacterial Infections; Cephalosporins; Elective Surgical Procedures; Fever; Humans; Hysterectomy; Lincosamides; Pelvis; Penicillins; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfonamides; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 28625021
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004637.pub2 -
Advances in Therapy Jun 2020Surgical site infection (SSI) following spinal surgery is a major source of postoperative morbidity. Although studies have demonstrated perioperative antimicrobial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Preoperative Versus Extended Postoperative Antimicrobial Prophylaxis of Surgical Site Infection During Spinal Surgery: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Surgical site infection (SSI) following spinal surgery is a major source of postoperative morbidity. Although studies have demonstrated perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) to be beneficial in the prevention of SSI among spinal surgery patients, consensus is lacking over whether preoperative or extended postoperative AMP is most efficacious. To date, no meta-analysis has investigated the comparative efficacy of these two temporally variable AMP protocols in spinal surgery. We undertook a systemic review and meta-analysis to determine whether extended postoperative AMP is associated with a difference in the rate of SSI occurrence among adult patients undergoing spinal surgery.
METHODS
Embase and MEDLINE databases were systematically searched for clinical trials and cohort studies directly comparing SSI rates among adult spinal surgery patients receiving either preoperative or extended postoperative AMP. Quality of evidence of the overall study population was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group approach. Random effects meta-analyses were performed utilizing both pooled and stratified data based on instrumentation use.
RESULTS
Five studies met inclusion criteria. No individual study demonstrated a significant difference in the rate of SSI occurrence between preoperative and extended postoperative AMP protocols. The GRADE quality of evidence was low. Among the overall cohort of 2824 patients, 96% underwent lumbar spinal surgery. Pooled SSI rates were 1.38% (26/1887) for patients receiving extended postoperative AMP and 1.28% (12/937) for patients only receiving preoperative AMP. The risk of SSI development among patients receiving extended postoperative AMP was not significantly different from the risk of SSI development among patients only receiving preoperative AMP [RR (risk ratio), 1.11; 95% CI (confidence interval) 0.53-2.36; p = 0.78]. The difference in risk of SSI development when comparing extended postoperative AMP to preoperative AMP was also not significant for both instrumented (RR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.15-5.75; p = 0.93) and non-instrumented spinal surgery (RR, 1.25; 95% CI 0.49-3.17; p = 0.65). There was no evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects for all meta-analyses.
CONCLUSION
Preoperative AMP appears to provide equivalent protection against SSI development when compared to extended postoperative AMP. Prudent antibiotic use is also known to decrease hospital length of stay, healthcare expenditure, and risk of complications. However, until higher-quality evidence becomes available regarding AMP in spinal surgery, surgeons should continue to exercise discretion and clinical judgment when weighing the effects of patient comorbidities and complications before determining the optimal duration of perioperative AMP.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Humans; Postoperative Care; Preoperative Care; Spinal Cord Diseases; Spinal Diseases; Spinal Fractures; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 32415484
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-020-01371-5 -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Mar 2024Cholangiohydatidosis (CH) is an evolutionary complication of hepatic cystic echinococcosis, associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was...
BACKGROUND
Cholangiohydatidosis (CH) is an evolutionary complication of hepatic cystic echinococcosis, associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to describe the available evidence regarding clinical characteristics of CH, postoperative complications and hospital mortality.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Systematic review. Studies related to CH with no language or publication restriction were included. Sensitive searches were performed in Trip Database, SciELO, BIREME-BVS, WoS, PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS. MeSH and free terms were used, including articles up to April 2023. The main outcome variables were postoperative complications and hospital mortality; the secondary ones were publication year, origin and design of primary studies, main clinical manifestation, anatomical location and type of cysts, hospital stay, surgical procedure performed, reinterventions; and methodological quality of primary studies, which was assessed using MInCir-T and MInCir-P scales. Descriptive statistics, calculation of weighted averages and their comparison by least squares logistic regression were applied. 446 studies were retrieved from the searches performed, 102 of which met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The studies analyzed represent 1241 patients. The highest proportion of articles was published in the last decade (39.2%). Reports are mainly from Turkey (28.4%), Greece (9.8%), Morocco and Spain (8.8% each). With a weighted mean of 14.3 days of hospital stance; it was verified that 26.2% of patients developed postoperative complications (74,3% Clavien y Dindo III y IV), 6.7% needed re-interventions, and 3.7% died. When comparing the variables age, postoperative complications, hospital mortality, and reinterventions in two periods of time (1982-2006 vs. 2007-2023), no statistically significant differences were found. When applying the MInCir-T and MInCir-P scales, the methodological quality of the primary studies was 9.6±1.1 and 14.5±4.3 points, respectively.
CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE
CH is associated with severe postoperative complications and significant hospital mortality, independent of the development of therapeutic support associated with the passage of time.
Topics: Humans; Hospital Mortality; Postoperative Complications; Echinococcosis, Hepatic; Morbidity
PubMed: 38452054
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011558 -
PloS One 2016Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication of total knee arthroplasty. Two-stage revision is the most widely used technique and considered as the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
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.
OBJECTIVE
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.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, reference lists of relevant studies to August 2015, and correspondence with investigators.
STUDY SELECTION
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.
REVIEW METHODS
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.
RESULTS
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.
LIMITATIONS
Potential bias owing to the limited number of one-stage revision studies and inability to explore heterogeneity in greater detail.
CONCLUSIONS
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.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015017327.
Topics: Humans; Knee Prosthesis; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Recurrence; Reoperation
PubMed: 26967645
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151537