| Popis: |
Background: Variability in the definition of treatment success poses difficulty when assessing the reported efficacy of treatments for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). To address this problem, we determined how definitions of PJI treatment success have changed over time and how this has affected published rates of success after one-stage and two-stage treatments for hip and knee PJI. Methods: A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted to identify one-stage and two-stage revision hip and knee PJI publications in major databases (2006–2021). Definition of treatment success, based on Musculoskeletal Infection Society tier criteria, was identified for each study. Publication year, number of patients, minimum follow-up, and study quality were also recorded. The association of success definitions and treatment success rate was measured using multi-variable meta-regression. Results: Study quality remained unchanged in the 245 publications included. Over time, no antibiotics (tier 1) and no further surgery (tier 3) (40.7 % and 54.5 %, respectively) became the two dominant criteria. After controlling for type of surgery, study quality, study design, follow-up, and year of publication, studies with less strict success definitions (tier 3) reported slightly higher odds ratios of 1.05 [1.01, 1.10] (p=0.009) in terms of treatment success rates compared to tier 1. Conclusions: PJI researchers have gravitated towards tier-1 and tier-3 definitions of treatment success. While studies with stricter definitions had lower PJI treatment success, the clinical significance of this is unclear. Study quality, reflected in the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) score, did not improve. We advocate for improving PJI study quality, including clarification of the definition of treatment success. |
