Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
1.
Bone Joint J ; 100-B(2): 134-142, 2018 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29437054

RESUMEN

AIMS: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Different bearing surface materials have different surface properties and it has been suggested that the choice of bearing surface may influence the risk of PJI after THA. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the rate of PJI between metal-on-polyethylene (MoP), ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP), and ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) were searched for comparative randomized and observational studies that reported the incidence of PJI for different bearing surfaces. Two investigators independently reviewed studies for eligibility, evaluated risk of bias, and performed data extraction. Meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenzel method and random-effects model in accordance with methods of the Cochrane group. RESULTS: Our search strategy revealed 2272 studies, of which 17 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. These comprised 11 randomized controlled trials and six observational studies. The overall quality of included studies was high but the observational studies were at high risk of bias due to inadequate adjustment for confounding factors. The overall cumulative incidence of PJI across all studies was 0.78% (1514/193 378). For each bearing combination, the overall incidence was as follows: MoP 0.85% (1353/158 430); CoP 0.38% (67/17 489); and CoC 0.53% (94/17 459). The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the three bearing combinations in terms of risk of PJI. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the clinical studies available, there is no evidence that bearing choice influences the risk of PJI. Future research, including basic science studies and large, adequately controlled registry studies, may be helpful in determining whether implant materials play a role in determining the risk of PJI following arthroplasty surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:134-42.


Asunto(s)
Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera , Prótesis de Cadera , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/etiología , Cerámica , Humanos , Incidencia , Metales , Polietileno , Diseño de Prótesis , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/epidemiología , Factores de Riesgo , Propiedades de Superficie
2.
Bone Joint J ; 100-B(3): 271-284, 2018 03 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29589505

RESUMEN

Aims: The success of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) depends on osseointegration at the graft-tunnel interface and intra-articular ligamentization. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of clinical and preclinical studies that evaluated biological augmentation of graft healing in ACLR. Materials and Methods: In all, 1879 studies were identified across three databases. Following assessment against strict criteria, 112 studies were included (20 clinical studies; 92 animal studies). Results: Seven categories of biological interventions were identified: growth factors, biomaterials, stem cells, gene therapy, autologous tissue, biophysical/environmental, and pharmaceuticals. The methodological quality of animal studies was moderate in 97%, but only 10% used clinically relevant outcome measures. The most interventions in clinical trials target the graft-tunnel interface and are applied intraoperatively. Platelet-rich plasma is the most studied intervention, but the clinical outcomes are mixed, and the methodological quality of studies was suboptimal. Other biological therapies investigated in clinical trials include: remnant-augmented ACLR; bone substitutes; calcium phosphate-hybridized grafts; extracorporeal shockwave therapy; and adult autologus non-cultivated stem cells. Conclusion: There is extensive preclinical research supporting the use of biological therapies to augment ACLR. Further clinical studies that meet the minimum standards of reporting are required to determine whether emerging biological strategies will provide tangible benefits in patients undergoing ACLR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:271-84.


Asunto(s)
Reconstrucción del Ligamento Cruzado Anterior/métodos , Cicatrización de Heridas/fisiología , Animales , Materiales Biocompatibles/farmacología , Sustitutos de Huesos/farmacología , Fosfatos de Calcio/farmacología , Tratamiento con Ondas de Choque Extracorpóreas , Terapia Genética , Humanos , Péptidos y Proteínas de Señalización Intercelular/farmacología , Plasma Rico en Plaquetas , Trasplante de Células Madre , Trasplante Autólogo , Cicatrización de Heridas/efectos de los fármacos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
Detalles de la búsqueda