Comparison of periprosthetic joint infection rates in the direct anterior approach and non-anterior approaches to primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis
التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان:
Comparison of periprosthetic joint infection rates in the direct anterior approach and non-anterior approaches to primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Background: Periprosthetic joint infection is a serious complication and devastating mode of failure of total hip arthroplasty. Various surgical approaches exist for total hip arthroplasty, including the increasingly popularised direct anterior approach. There is no clear consensus on which approach is least associated with periprosthetic joint infection. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the rate of periprosthetic joint infection between surgical approaches to primary total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. Methods: A search of 3 electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) was conducted for relevant studies up to June 2020 with a defined list of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Randomised controlled trials and longitudinal studies reporting periprosthetic joint infection rates after primary total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis were included based on surgical approach. Data extraction was completed, and a meta-analysis was then performed using OpenMeta[Analyst] software. Results: A total of 24,407 hips were included for meta-analysis with an overall PJI incidence of 0.57%. The incidence rate for periprosthetic joint infection was 0.77% in the direct anterior approach group and 0.44% in the non-anterior approach group. The use of an anterior approach for a total hip arthroplasty was associated with an increased risk for periprosthetic joint infection (odds ratio = 1.404; 95% confidence interval, 0.711–2.771; p = 0.03). Conclusions: The direct anterior approach to total hip arthroplasty may be associated with a significantly increased risk for periprosthetic joint infection compared to non-anterior approaches, even though the overall rate was still small. This should be considered by orthopedic surgeons when choosing the surgical approach.
