BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026
The effect of extended postoperative oral antibiotic prophylaxis on the reinfection risk following two-stage exchange arthroplasty for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kao Pei-En, Hsu Chih-Wei, Hsu Allen Herng Shouh, Wu Cheng-Ta, Lin Po-Chun, Kuo Feng-Chih
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of extended postoperative oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EPOAP) on the risk of reinfection following two-stage exchange arthroplasty for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).
METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted on January 11, 2025. Studies reporting reinfection rates in patients receiving EPOAP after two-stage exchange arthroplasty, compared to those who did not, were included. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and subgroup analyses were performed based on the duration of EPOAP use (> 2 weeks vs. ≤2 weeks) and the joint site (hip or knee).
RESULTS: Five studies, including four retrospective cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial, with a total of 486 knees and 444 hips, were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated that EPOAP significantly reduced the risk of reinfection following two-stage exchange arthroplasty (pooled RR: 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35, 0.75; p = 0.0006). Subgroup analyses yielded similar findings, with significant reductions in reinfection risk for EPOAP duration > 2 weeks (pooled RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.34, 0.78; p = 0.002), hip arthroplasty (pooled RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.70; p = 0.002), while knee arthroplasty showed a borderline nonsignificant reduction (pooled RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.39, 1.04; p = 0.07). Only one cohort study reported a decreased risk of reinfection with EPOAP use ≤ 2 weeks. Two studies assessed adverse events related to EPOAP. No complications were observed among 22 patients in one cohort study, whereas 6 of 22 patients (27%) in an RCT experienced mild gastrointestinal or dermatologic reactions that led to treatment discontinuation. Additionally, another cohort study reported that 16 of 24 reinfection cases (67%) involved organisms resistant to EPOAP.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that EPOAP is associated with a reduced risk of reinfection following two-stage exchange arthroplasty for hip arthroplasty, while further research is warranted for knee cases. This approach may improve patient outcomes and help optimize post-operative antibiotic management.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted on January 11, 2025. Studies reporting reinfection rates in patients receiving EPOAP after two-stage exchange arthroplasty, compared to those who did not, were included. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and subgroup analyses were performed based on the duration of EPOAP use (> 2 weeks vs. ≤2 weeks) and the joint site (hip or knee).
RESULTS: Five studies, including four retrospective cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial, with a total of 486 knees and 444 hips, were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated that EPOAP significantly reduced the risk of reinfection following two-stage exchange arthroplasty (pooled RR: 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35, 0.75; p = 0.0006). Subgroup analyses yielded similar findings, with significant reductions in reinfection risk for EPOAP duration > 2 weeks (pooled RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.34, 0.78; p = 0.002), hip arthroplasty (pooled RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.70; p = 0.002), while knee arthroplasty showed a borderline nonsignificant reduction (pooled RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.39, 1.04; p = 0.07). Only one cohort study reported a decreased risk of reinfection with EPOAP use ≤ 2 weeks. Two studies assessed adverse events related to EPOAP. No complications were observed among 22 patients in one cohort study, whereas 6 of 22 patients (27%) in an RCT experienced mild gastrointestinal or dermatologic reactions that led to treatment discontinuation. Additionally, another cohort study reported that 16 of 24 reinfection cases (67%) involved organisms resistant to EPOAP.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that EPOAP is associated with a reduced risk of reinfection following two-stage exchange arthroplasty for hip arthroplasty, while further research is warranted for knee cases. This approach may improve patient outcomes and help optimize post-operative antibiotic management.