Patient-Related Risk Factors for Periprosthetic Joint Infection after Total Joint Arthroplasty:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

<div><p>Background</p><p>Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are dreaded complications of total joint arthroplasties. The risk of developing PJIs is likely to be influenced by several patient factors such as sociodemographic characteristics, body mass index (BMI), and medical and surgical histories. However, the nature and magnitude of the long-term longitudinal associations between these patient-related factors and risk of developing PJIs are uncertain.</p><p>Objective</p><p>To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the associations between several patient-related factors and PJI.</p><p>Data Sources</p><p>MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant studies from inception to September 2015.</p><p>Study Selection</p><p>Longitudinal studies with at least one-year of follow-up for PJIs after total joint arthroplasty.</p><p>Data Extraction and Synthesis</p><p>Two investigators extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. A consensus was reached with involvement of a third. The relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals was used as the summary measure of association across studies. Study-specific RRs with 95% confidence intervals were meta-analysed using random effect models and were grouped by study-level characteristics.</p><p>Results</p><p>Sixty-six observational (23 prospective cohort and 43 retrospective cohort or case-control) studies with data on 512,508 participants were included. Comparing males to females and smokers to non-smokers, the pooled RRs for PJI were 1.36 (1.18–1.57) and 1.83 (1.24–2.70) respectively. There was no evidence of any significant associations of PJI with age and high alcohol intake. Comparing BMI ≥ 30 versus < 30 kg/m²; ≥ 35 versus < 35 kg/m²; and ≥ 40 versus < 40 kg/m²; the pooled RRs were 1.60 (1.29–1.99); 1.53 (1.22–1.92); and 3.68 (2.25–6.01) respectively. Histories of diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, depression, steroid use, and previous joint surgery were also associated with increased risk of PJI. The results remained similar when grouped by relevant study level characteristics.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Several potentially modifiable patient-related factors are associated with the risk of developing PJIs. Identifying patients with these risk factors who are due to have arthroplasty surgery and modulating these risk factors might be essential in reducing the incidence of PJI. Further research is however warranted to assess the potential clinical utility of these risk factors as risk assessment tools for PJI.</p><p>Systematic Review Registration</p><p>PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015023485</p></div

Re-Infection Outcomes Following One- And Two-Stage Surgical Revision of Infected Knee Prosthesis:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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

Risk factors for dislocation after primary total hip replacement:a systematic review and meta-analysis of 125 studies involving approximately five million hip replacements

Background:&nbsp;Dislocation following total hip replacement is associated with repeated admissions to hospital and substantial costs to the health system. Factors influencing dislocation following primary total hip replacement are not well understood. We aimed to assess the association of various factors with dislocation risk following primary total hip replacement. Methods:&nbsp;We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies reporting associations of patient-related, surgery-related, implant-related, and hospital-related factors with dislocation risk after primary total hip replacement. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for all relevant articles published up to March 8, 2019. Summary measures of association were calculated with relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs. This study is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42019121378. Findings:&nbsp;We identified 149 articles based on 125 unique studies with data on 4 633 935 primary total hip replacements and 35 264 dislocations. The incidence of dislocation ranged from 0&middot;12% to 16&middot;13%, with an overall pooled incidence of 2&middot;10% (95% CI 1&middot;83&ndash;2&middot;38) over a weighted mean follow-up duration of 6 years. Based on the median year of data collection, a significant decline in dislocation rates was observed from 1971 to 2015. The risk of dislocation did not differ significantly between male versus female patients (RR 0&middot;97; 95% CI 0&middot;88&ndash;1&middot;08), was higher in those aged 70 years and older than in those younger than 70 years (1&middot;27; 1&middot;02&ndash;1&middot;57), and was lower in those from high versus low income groups (0&middot;79; 0&middot;74&ndash;0&middot;85). White ethnicity (only when compared with Asian ethnicity), drug use disorder, and social deprivation were significantly associated with increased dislocation risk. The risk of dislocation was higher in patients with body-mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2&nbsp;or higher than in those with BMI lower than 30 kg/m2&nbsp;(RR 1&middot;38; 95% CI 1&middot;03&ndash;1&middot;85). Medical factors and those related to surgical history that were significantly associated with increased dislocation risk included neurological disorder, psychiatric disease, comorbidity indices, previous surgery including spinal fusion, and surgical indications including avascular necrosis, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory arthritis, and osteonecrosis. Surgical factors such as the anterolateral, direct anterior, or lateral approach, and posterior approach with short external rotator and capsule repair were significantly associated with reduced dislocation risk. At the implant level, larger femoral head diameters, elevated acetabular liners, dual mobility cups, cemented fixations, and standard femoral neck lengths significantly reduced the risk of dislocation. Hospital-related factors such as experienced surgeons and high surgeon procedure volume significantly reduced the risk of dislocation. Interpretation:&nbsp;Dislocation following primary total hip replacement has declined over time. Surgical approaches that reduce dislocation risk can be used by clinicians during primary total hip replacement, and alternative bearings such as dual mobility can be used in individuals at high risk of dislocation. Modifiable risk factors such as high BMI and comorbidities might also be amenable to optimisation before surgery. </div

The effectiveness of non-pharmacological sleep interventions for people with chronic pain:a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: About two thirds of people with chronic pain report problems sleeping. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological sleep interventions for improving sleep in people with chronic pain. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of non-pharmacological and non-invasive interventions to improve sleep quality or duration for adults with chronic non-cancer pain evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. Our primary outcome of interest was sleep; secondary outcomes included pain, health-related quality of life, and psychological wellbeing. We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to April 2020. After screening, two reviewers evaluated articles and extracted data. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool. RESULTS: We included 42 trials involving 3346 people randomised to 94 groups, of which 56 received an intervention targeting sleep. 10 studies were of fair and 32 of good methodological quality. Overall risk of bias was judged to be low in 11, high in 10 and unclear in 21 studies. In 9 studies with 385 people randomised, cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia showed benefit post-treatment compared with controls for improved sleep quality, standardised mean difference − 1.23 (95%CI -1.76, − 0.70; p < 0.00001). The effect size was only slightly reduced in meta-analysis of 3 studies at low risk of bias. The difference between groups was lower at 3 and 6 months after treatment but still favoured cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia. Pain, anxiety and depression were reduced post-treatment, but evidence of longer term benefit was lacking. There was no evidence that sleep hygiene interventions were effective in improving sleep and there was some evidence in comparative studies to suggest that cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia was more effective than sleep hygiene. Numerous other interventions were evaluated in small numbers of studies, but evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia is an effective treatment to improve sleep for people with chronic pain, but further high-quality primary research is required to explore combined CBT content that will ensure additional improvements to pain, quality of life and psychological health and longer-term maintenance of benefits. Primary research is also needed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for which insufficient evidence exists. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019093799. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05318-5

Common elective orthopaedic procedures and their clinical effectiveness:umbrella review of level 1 evidence

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness of common elective orthopaedic procedures compared with no treatment, placebo, or non-operative care and assess the impact on clinical guidelines. DESIGN: Umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials or other study designs in the absence of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Ten of the most common elective orthopaedic procedures—arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, arthroscopic meniscal repair of the knee, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy of the knee, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, arthroscopic subacromial decompression, carpal tunnel decompression, lumbar spine decompression, lumbar spine fusion, total hip replacement, and total knee replacement—were studied. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and bibliographies were searched until September 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (or in the absence of meta-analysis other study designs) that compared the clinical effectiveness of any of the 10 orthopaedic procedures with no treatment, placebo, or non-operative care. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Summary data were extracted by two independent investigators, and a consensus was reached with the involvement of a third. The methodological quality of each meta-analysis was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews instrument. The Jadad decision algorithm was used to ascertain which meta-analysis represented the best evidence. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence search was used to check whether recommendations for each procedure reflected the body of evidence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality and quantity of evidence behind common elective orthopaedic interventions and comparisons with the strength of recommendations in relevant national clinical guidelines. RESULTS: Randomised controlled trial evidence supports the superiority of carpal tunnel decompression and total knee replacement over non-operative care. No randomised controlled trials specifically compared total hip replacement or meniscal repair with non-operative care. Trial evidence for the other six procedures showed no benefit over non-operative care. CONCLUSIONS: Although they may be effective overall or in certain subgroups, no strong, high quality evidence base shows that many commonly performed elective orthopaedic procedures are more effective than non-operative alternatives. Despite the lack of strong evidence, some of these procedures are still recommended by national guidelines in certain situations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018115917

Association of social support with patient-reported outcomes after joint replacement:A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Identifying prognostic factors for outcomes after joint replacement could improve the provision of stratified care. This systematic review evaluated whether social support is a prognostic factor for better patient-reported outcomes after total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO were searched from inception to April 2019. Cohort studies evaluating the association between social support and patient-reported outcomes at three months or longer after THR or TKR were included. Data were extracted from study reports. Study quality was assessed using the QUIPS tool. Data were synthesized using meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016041485). FINDINGS: Searches identified 5,810 articles and 56 studies with data from 119,165 patients were included. In meta-analysis, the presence of social support had a beneficial effect on long-term post-operative WOMAC (mean difference 2.88; 95% CIs 1.30; 4.46) and Oxford Knee Score (0.29; 0.12, 0.45). Social support measured using a validated questionnaire was found to be associated with WOMAC pain (0.04; 0.00, 0.08) but not WOMAC function (-0.01; -0.12, 0.11). The presence of social support had a positive association with some SF-36 subscales but not others. For all outcomes, results of narrative synthesis were inconsistent. INTERPRETATION: There is evidence that social support is a prognostic factor for some outcomes after joint replacement. Development and evaluation of complex interventions to improve social support and social integration is warranted. FUNDING: This study was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol

Rest Pain and Movement-Evoked Pain as Unique Constructs in Hip and Knee Replacements

OBJECTIVE: There is limited information about the extent to which the association between preoperative and chronic postoperative pain is mediated via pain‐on‐movement or pain‐at‐rest. We explored these associations in patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). METHODS: A total of 322 and 316 patients receiving THR and TKR, respectively, were recruited into a single‐center UK cohort (Arthroplasty Pain Experience) study. Preoperative, acute postoperative, and 12‐month pain severity was measured using self‐reported pain instruments. The association between preoperative/acute pain and chronic postoperative pain was investigated using structural equation modeling (SEM). RESULTS: Patients with high levels of preoperative pain were more likely to report chronic pain after THR (β = 0.195, P = 0.02) and TKR (β = 0.749, P < 0.0001). Acute postoperative pain‐on‐movement was not associated with chronic pain after TKR or THR after adjusting for preoperative pain; however, acute pain‐at‐rest was associated with chronic pain after THR (β = 0.20, P < 0.0002) but not TKR after adjusting for preoperative pain. Analysis of pain‐at‐rest and pain‐on‐movement highlighted differences between THR and TKR patients. Chronic pain‐at‐rest after THR was weakly associated with pain‐at‐rest during the preoperative (β = 0.11, P = 0.068) and acute postoperative period (β = 0.21, P < 0.0001). In contrast, chronic pain‐on‐movement after TKR was strongly associated with the severity of pain‐on‐movement during the preoperative period (β = 0.51, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: SEM illustrated the different patterns of association between measures of pain over time in patients undergoing THR and TKR for osteoarthritis. These findings highlight the importance of future work that explores the mechanisms underlying pain‐on‐movement and pain‐at‐rest