One- or two-stage exchange for periprosthetic shoulder infection: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Introduction: One-stage exchange is the gold-standard for management of periprosthetic shoulder infection. The present review compares efficacy between 1- and 2-stage exchange in this indication.

Material and methods: We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis following the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) criteria. The literature search used the Medline, Embase and Central data-bases. The studies included assessed 1- and 2-stage exchange in periprosthetic shoulder infection. The main outcome was reinfection rate, and the secondary outcome postoperative complications rate.

Results: Twenty-one studies, for 501 patients, were included: 5 assessing 1-stage exchange, 11 2-stage, and 5 both. Mean follow-up was 4.3 years (range, 2-6.1 years). Mean reinfection rates ranged between 0 and 50% in 1-stage exchange and between 0 and 36.8% in 2-stage exchange. The combined rate was 7% (95% CI, 3.8-12.5%) in 1-stage and 21.3% (95% CI, 16-27.9%) in 2-stage exchange. Mean complications rates ranged between 0 and 50% in 1-stage exchange and between 5.7% and 73%% in 2-stage exchange. The combined rate was 17% (95% CI, 11.9-23.9%) in 1-stage and 32.8% (95% CI, 25.8-40.6%) in 2-stage exchange.

Discussion: To our knowledge, the present meta-analysis is the first to assess results in 1- and 2-stage exchange for chronic periprosthetic shoulder infection.

Conclusion: One-stage exchange seemed to provide better results, with less reinfection and fewer complications than 2-stage exchange.

Level of evidence: I, meta-analysis.

Keywords: 1-stage; 2-stage; Infection; Prosthesis; Sepsis; Shoulder.