Active, middle-aged patients with symptomatic cartilage or osteochondral defects can find themselves in a treatment gap when they have failed conservative measures but are not yet eligible for conventional arthroplasty. Data from various cohort studies suggests that focal knee resurfacing implants such as HemiCAP, UniCAP, Episealer or BioBoly are cost-effective solutions to alleviate pain, improve function and delay or eliminate the need for conventional replacement. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in order to(i) evaluate revision rates and implant survival of focal resurfacing; (ii) explore surgical complications; and (iii) evaluate various patient reported clinical outcome measures. PubMED, Cochrane Library and Medline databases were searched in February 2022 for prospective and retrospective cohort studies evaluating any of the available implant types. Data on incidence of revision, complications and various patient reported outcome measures was sourced.Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are uncommon but are devastating complications of total knee replacement (TKR). We analysed the risk factors of revision for PJI following primary TKR and their association with PJI at different post-operative periods. Primary TKRs and subsequent revision surgeries performed for PJI from 2003–2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry (NJR). Multilevel piece-wise exponential non-proportional hazards models were used to estimate the effect of the investigated factors at different post-operative periods. Patient, perioperative and healthcare system characteristics were investigated and data from the Hospital Episode Statistics for England were linked to obtain information on specific comorbidities. The index TKRs consisted of 679,010 primaries with 3,659 subsequently revised for PJI, 7% within 3 months, 6% between 3–6months, 17% between 6–12months, 27% between 1–2years and 43% ≥2 years from the index procedure. Risk factors for revision for PJI included male sex, high BMI, high ASA grade and young age. Patients with chronic pulmonary disease, diabetes and liver disease had higher risk of revision for PJI, as had patients who had a primary TKR for an indication of trauma or inflammatory arthropathy. Surgical procedure, fixation method, constraint and bearing type influenced the risk of revision for PJI. Their effects were period-specific. No or small associations were found with the operating surgeon grade, surgical volume and hospital surgical volume. These findings from the world's largest joint replacement registry show a more complex picture than the meta-analyses published to date with specific time-dependent effects for the identified risk factors.
Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is an uncommon but serious complication of hip replacement. A recent systematic review of patient risk factors for PJI identified male gender, smoking status, increasing BMI, steroid use, previous joint surgery and comorbidities of diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and depression as risk factors for developing PJI. Limitations of the current literature include the short term follow up of most published studies. We investigated the role of patient, surgical and healthcare factors on the risk of revision of a primary hip replacement for PJI at different time-points in the post-operative follow-up. It is important that those risk factors are identified so that patients can be appropriately counselled according to their individual risk profile prior to surgery and modifiable factors can be addressed to reduce the risk of PJI at an individual and healthcare system level. Primary hip replacements and subsequent revision procedures performed for PJI from 2003–2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry (NJR). Patient (age, gender, ASA grade, BMI), perioperative (surgical indication, type of anaesthesia, thromboprophylaxis regime, surgical approach, hip replacement and bearing surface and use of femoral or acetabular bone graft) and healthcare system characteristics (surgeon grade, surgical volume) were linked with data from Hospital Episode Statistics to obtain information on specific ethnicity and comorbidities (derived from the Charlson index). Multilevel piecewise exponential non-proportional hazards models were used to estimate their effects at different post-operative periods (0–3 months, 3–6 months, 6–12 months, 12–24 and >24 months post-operation).Introduction
Materials and Methods
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. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of one- and two-stage revision strategies to prevent re-infection after prosthetic hip infection. Cohort studies (prospective or retrospective) conducted in unselected patients with infection treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and reporting re-infection outcomes within two years of revision were retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, manual search of bibliographies to March 2015, and email contact with investigators. Data were extracted by two independent investigators and a consensus was reached with involvement of a third. Rates of re-infection were aggregated using random-effect models after arcsine transformation, and were grouped by study and population level characteristics.Background
Methods
Joint arthroplasty is a common surgical procedure, with over 185,000 primary hip and knee arthroplasties performed in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2014. After total hip or knee arthroplasty, about 1% of patients develop deep prosthetic joint infection (PJI), which usually requires further major operations to clear the infection. Although PJI affects only a small percentage of patients it is one of the most devastating complications associated with this procedure. Research evidence has focussed on clinical effectiveness of revision surgery while there has been less focus on the impact on patients and support needs. Using a systematic review approach, the aim of this study was to assess support needs and evaluate what interventions are routinely offered to support patients undergoing treatment for PJI following hip or knee arthroplasty. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cinahl, Social Science Citation Index, and The Cochrane Library from 1980 to February 15, 2015 for observational (prospective cohort, nested case-control, case-control, and retrospective cohort) studies, qualitative studies, and clinical trials that report on the support needs and interventions for patients being treated for PJI or other major adverse occurrences following joint arthroplasty. Data were extracted by two independent investigators and consensus reached with involvement of a third. Of 4,161 potentially relevant citations, we identified one case-control, one prospective cohort and two qualitative studies for inclusion in the synthesis. Patients report that PJI and treatment had a profoundly negative impact affecting physical, emotional, social and economic aspects of their lives. No study evaluated support interventions for PJI or other major adverse occurrences following hip and knee arthroplasty. The interpretation of study results is limited by variation in study design, outcome measures and the small number of relevant eligible studies. Findings show that patients undergoing treatment for PJI have extensive physical, psychological, social and economic support needs. Our review highlights a lack of evidence about support strategies for patients undergoing treatment for PJI and other adverse occurrences. There is a need to design, implement and evaluate interventions to support these patients.
