Literature DB >> 21471416

Comparison of one and two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasty complicated by infection: a Markov expected-utility decision analysis.

Christopher F Wolf1, Ning Yan Gu, Jason N Doctor, Paul A Manner, Seth S Leopold.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Two-stage revisions of total hip arthroplasties complicated by chronic infection result in reinfection rates that are lower than those following single-stage revisions but may also result in increased surgical morbidity. Using a decision analysis, we compared single-stage and two-stage revisions to determine which treatment modality resulted in greater quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
METHODS: A review of the literature on the treatment of patients with an infection at the site of a total hip arthroplasty provided probabilities; utility values for common postoperative health states were determined in a previously published study. With these data, we conducted a Markov cohort simulation decision analysis. Sensitivity analysis validated the model, and comparisons were made in terms of QALYs.
RESULTS: The twelve-month model favored direct-exchange revision over the two-stage approach, regardless of whether surgeon or patient-derived utilities were used (0.945 versus 0.896 and 0.897 versus 0.861 QALYs for the patient and surgeon models, respectively). Similar results were observed in a lifetime model with a ten-year life expectancy (7.853 versus 7.771, and 7.438 versus 7.362 QALYs, respectively). The findings were found to be robust in sensitivity analyses in which clinically relevant ranges of input variables were used.
CONCLUSIONS: This analysis favored the direct-exchange arthroplasty over the two-stage approach. This study should be considered hypothesis-generating for future randomized controlled trials in which, ideally, health end points will be considered in addition to the eradication of infection.
© 2011 by the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21471416     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.I.01256

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  42 in total

Review 1.  [What can be done when hip prostheses fail? : New trends in revision endoprosthetics].

Authors:  S Gravius; T Randau; D C Wirtz
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 2.  [Septic endoprosthesis exchange : Preoperative diagnosis and reimplantation].

Authors:  H M L Mühlhofer; J Schauwecker; I J Banke; R von Eisenhart-Rothe
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Two-stage revision of prosthetic hip joint infections using antibiotic-loaded cement spacers: When is the best time to perform the second stage?

Authors:  Ines Vielgut; Patrick Sadoghi; Matthias Wolf; Lukas Holzer; Andreas Leithner; Gerold Schwantzer; Rudolf Poolman; Bernhard Frankl; Mathias Glehr
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  [Revision implants of the future: trends and new developments].

Authors:  S Winkler; F-X Köck; C Baier; H-R Springorum; A Beifuss; P Lechler; J Grifka; J Schaumburger
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  CORR Insights®: outcome of one-stage cementless exchange for acute postoperative periprosthetic hip infection.

Authors:  Paul Manner
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-07-19       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 6.  Single- or two-stage revision for infected total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Hugh A C Leonard; Alexander D Liddle; Orlaith Burke; David W Murray; Hemant Pandit
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-09-21       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  What is the Long-term Economic Societal Effect of Periprosthetic Infections After THA? A Markov Analysis.

Authors:  Thomas J Parisi; Joseph F Konopka; Hany S Bedair
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-04-07       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 8.  The Role of One-Stage Exchange for Prosthetic Joint Infection.

Authors:  Fiachra E Rowan; Matthew J Donaldson; Jurek R Pietrzak; Fares S Haddad
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2018-09

Review 9.  Low-Virulence Organisms and Periprosthetic Joint Infection-Biofilm Considerations of These Organisms.

Authors:  K Keely Boyle; Stuart Wood; T David Tarity
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2018-09

10.  Clinical faceoff: One- versus two-stage exchange arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infections.

Authors:  Montri D Wongworawat
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.