Back to Journals » Clinical Epidemiology » Volume 4 » Issue 1

Chronic infections in hip arthroplasties: comparing risk of reinfection following one-stage and two-stage revision: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors Lange J, Troelsen, Thomsen R, Soballe

Received 9 December 2011

Accepted for publication 31 January 2012

Published 27 March 2012 Volume 2012:4(1) Pages 57—73

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S29025

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 2


Jeppe Lange1,2, Anders Troelsen3, Reimar W Thomsen4, Kjeld Søballe1,5
1Lundbeck Foundation Centre for Fast-Track Hip and Knee Surgery, Aarhus C, 2Center for Planned Surgery, Silkeborg Regional Hospital, Silkeborg, 3Department of Orthopaedics, Hvidovre Hospital, Hvidovre, 4Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aalborg, 5Department of Orthopaedics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus C, Denmark

Background: Two-stage revision is regarded by many as the best treatment of chronic infection in hip arthroplasties. Some international reports, however, have advocated one-stage revision. No systematic review or meta-analysis has ever compared the risk of reinfection following one-stage and two-stage revisions for chronic infection in hip arthroplasties.
Methods: The review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Relevant studies were identified using PubMed and Embase. We assessed studies that included patients with a chronic infection of a hip arthroplasty treated with either one-stage or two-stage revision and with available data on occurrence of reinfections. We performed a meta-analysis estimating absolute risk of reinfection using a random-effects model.
Results: We identified 36 studies eligible for inclusion. None were randomized controlled trials or comparative studies. The patients in these studies had received either one-stage revision (n = 375) or two-stage revision (n = 929). Reinfection occurred with an estimated absolute risk of 13.1% (95% confidence interval: 10.0%–17.1%) in the one-stage cohort and 10.4% (95% confidence interval: 8.5%–12.7%) in the two-stage cohort. The methodological quality of most included studies was considered low, with insufficient data to evaluate confounding factors.
Conclusions: Our results may indicate three additional reinfections per 100 reimplanted patients when performing a one-stage versus two-stage revision. However, the risk estimates were statistically imprecise and the quality of underlying data low, demonstrating the lack of clear evidence that two-stage revision is superior to one-stage revision among patients with chronically infected hip arthroplasties. This systematic review underscores the need for improvement in reporting and collection of high-quality data and for large comparative prospective studies on this issue.

Keywords: infection, arthroplasty, hip replacement, one-stage, two-stage, reoperation

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]