본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Does septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction lead to poor outcomes? A systematic review and meta‑analysis of observational studies

Ashleigh Peng Lin|Bao Tu Thai Nguyen|Son Quang Tran|Yi‑Jie Kuo|Shu-Wei Huang|Yu-Pin Chen
대한슬관절학회 (Korean Knee Society)|2024.12|Knee Surgery and Related Research|제36권 |pp. 45-45|DOI 10.1186/s43019-024-00248-z

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

OsteoarthritisInfectionSeptic arthritisAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionPatient-reported outcomeClinicianreported outcomeGraft retentionGraft removal

초록

Background Septic arthritis is a rare but devastating complication after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). While early treatment can prevent significant graft complications, outcomes are often inferior to those in uncomplicated ACLR. Furthermore, whether to retain or remove the graft after infection remains debatable. Therefore, we sought to compare the outcomes of septic arthritis post ACLR with uncomplicated ACLR and evaluate graft retention versus removal in infected patients. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in which PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Clinical studies were included if they compared patient-reported, clinician-reported, or radiographic outcomes (minimum follow-up of 12 months) between patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis and those with uncomplicated ACLR or that compared graft retention and removal in patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis. Results Thirteen studies were retrieved. Patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis reported inferior Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale scores (mean difference (MD) 7.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.20–11.86; P = 0.0006), Tegner Activity Scale scores (MD, 1.42; 95% CI 1.07–1.76; P < .00001), and return to sports rates (53% versus 76%, respectively) to those of patients with uncomplicated ACLR. Patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis and those with uncomplicated ACLR did not differ in terms of the pooled estimate of various clinician-reported outcomes, such as the objective International Knee Documentation Committee score, anterior–posterior laxity, pivot shift, and Lachman test results. Furthermore, no significant difference was noted between the aforementioned patient groups regarding osteoarthritis (detected radiographically). Graft retention led to better patient- and clinician-reported outcomes than graft removal. Conclusions Despite similar clinician-reported outcomes and osteoarthritis rates, patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis reported worse outcomes than those with uncomplicated ACLR. Graft retention leads to improved patientand clinician-reported outcomes compared with the outcomes of graft removal. Our findings may help develop realistic expectations and management strategies for this rare complication.

Abstract

Background Septic arthritis is a rare but devastating complication after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). While early treatment can prevent significant graft complications, outcomes are often inferior to those in uncomplicated ACLR. Furthermore, whether to retain or remove the graft after infection remains debatable. Therefore, we sought to compare the outcomes of septic arthritis post ACLR with uncomplicated ACLR and evaluate graft retention versus removal in infected patients. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in which PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Clinical studies were included if they compared patient-reported, clinician-reported, or radiographic outcomes (minimum follow-up of 12 months) between patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis and those with uncomplicated ACLR or that compared graft retention and removal in patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis. Results Thirteen studies were retrieved. Patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis reported inferior Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale scores (mean difference (MD) 7.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.20–11.86; P = 0.0006), Tegner Activity Scale scores (MD, 1.42; 95% CI 1.07–1.76; P < .00001), and return to sports rates (53% versus 76%, respectively) to those of patients with uncomplicated ACLR. Patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis and those with uncomplicated ACLR did not differ in terms of the pooled estimate of various clinician-reported outcomes, such as the objective International Knee Documentation Committee score, anterior–posterior laxity, pivot shift, and Lachman test results. Furthermore, no significant difference was noted between the aforementioned patient groups regarding osteoarthritis (detected radiographically). Graft retention led to better patient- and clinician-reported outcomes than graft removal. Conclusions Despite similar clinician-reported outcomes and osteoarthritis rates, patients with post-ACLR septic arthritis reported worse outcomes than those with uncomplicated ACLR. Graft retention leads to improved patientand clinician-reported outcomes compared with the outcomes of graft removal. Our findings may help develop realistic expectations and management strategies for this rare complication.

참고문헌 (42)

  1. Waterman BR, "Septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction : clinical and functional outcomes based on graft retention or removal", Orthop J Sports Med, 6(3), pp.2325967118758626~ (2018)[DOI]
  2. McAllister DR, "Outcomes of postoperative septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction", Am J Sports Med, 27(5), pp.562~570 (1999)[DOI]
  3. Kim S-J, "Infection after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction", Orthopedics, 37(7), pp.477~484 (2014)[DOI]
  4. Schuster P, "Septic arthritis after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction : evaluation of an arthroscopic graft-retaining treatment protocol", Am J Sports Med, 43(12), pp.3005~3012 (2015)[DOI]
  5. Wang C, "Recommendations for the management of septic arthritis after ACL reconstruction", Knee Surg, Sports Traumatol, Arthrosc, 22(9), pp.2136~2144 (2014)[DOI]
  6. Daniel Judd MAJ, "Infections following arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction", Arthroscopy, 22(4), pp.375~384 (2006)[DOI]
  7. Schollin-Borg M, "Presentation, outcome, and cause of septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction : a case control study", Arthroscopy, 19(9), pp.941~947 (2003)[DOI]
  8. Schulz AP, "Septic arthritis of the knee after anterior cruciate ligament surgery : a stage-adapted treatment regimen", Am J Sports Med, 35(7), pp.1064~1069 (2007)[DOI]
  9. Van Tongel A, "Septic arthritis after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction : a retrospective analysis of incidence, management and outcome", Arthroscopy, 25(3), pp.243~249 (2009)[DOI]
  10. Makhni EC, "Functional outcome and graft retention in patients with septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction : a systematic review", Arthroscopy, 31(7), pp.1392~1401 (2015)[DOI]
  11. Pogorzelski J, "Septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction : how important is graft salvage?", Am J Sports Med, 46(10), pp.2376~2383 (2018)[DOI]
  12. Moher D, "Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses : the PRISMA statement", PLoS Med (2009)[DOI]
  13. Higgins JPT, "A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects(ROBINS-E)", Environ Int, 186, pp.108602~ (2024)[DOI]
  14. Higgins JPTTJ, "Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions" (2019), John Wiley & Sons
  15. Hozo SP, "Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample", BMC Med Res Methodol, 5(1), pp.13~ (2005)[DOI]
  16. DerSimonian R, "Meta-analysis in clinical trials", Control Clin Trials, 7(3), pp.177~188 (1986)[DOI]
  17. Abdel-Aziz A, "Multiple arthroscopic debridement and graft retention in septic knee arthritis after ACL reconstruction : a prospective case-control study", Int Orthop, 38(1), pp.73~82 (2014)[DOI]
  18. Bohu Y, "professional athletes are not at a higher risk of infections after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction : incidence of septic arthritis, additional costs, and clinical outcomes from the french prospective anterior cruciate ligament study(FAST)cohort", Am J Sports Med, 47(1), pp.104~111 (2019)[DOI]
  19. BoströmWindhamre H, "Postoperative septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: does it affect the outcome? A retrospective controlled study", Arthroscopy, 30(9), pp.1110~1119 (2014)[DOI]
  20. Brophy RH, "Patients treated with surgical irrigation and debridement for infection after ACL reconstruction have a high rate of subsequent knee surgery", J ISAKOS, 4(2), pp.73~78 (2019)[DOI]
  21. Calvo R, "Septic arthritis in ACL reconstruction surgery with hamstring autografts. Eleven years of experience", Knee, 21(3), pp.717~720 (2014)[DOI]
  22. Meglic U, "MRI findings of early osteoarthritis in patients who sustained septic arthritis of the knee after ACL reconstruction", Orthop J Sports Med (2021)[DOI]
  23. Torres-Claramunt R, "Knee joint infection after ACL reconstruction : prevalence, management and functional outcomes", Knee Surg, Sports Traumatol, Arthrosc, 21(12), pp.2844~2849 (2013)[DOI]
  24. Gille J, "Functional outcome of septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament surgery", Int Orthop, 39(6), pp.1195~1201 (2015)[DOI]
  25. Themessl A, "Patients return to sports and to work after successful treatment of septic arthritis following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction", Knee Surg, Sports Traumatol, Arthrosc, 30(6), pp.1871~1879 (2022)[DOI]
  26. Mouzopoulos G, "Septic knee arthritis following ACL reconstruction : a systematic review", Knee Surg, Sports Traumatol, Arthrosc, 17(9), pp.1033~1042 (2009)[DOI]
  27. Saper M, "Arthroscopic irrigation and debridement in the treatment of septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction", Arthroscopy, 30(6), pp.747~754 (2014)[DOI]
  28. Scully WF, "Septic arthritis following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction : a comprehensive review of the literature", J Surg Orthop Adv, 22(2), pp.127~133 (2013)[DOI]
  29. Nwachukwu BU, "Patient-reported outcomes and factors associated with achieving the minimal clinically important difference after ACL reconstruction : results at a mean 7. 7-year follow-up", JBJS Open Access, 6(4), pp.e21.00056~ (2021)[DOI]
  30. Nwachukwu BU, "Preoperative short form health survey score is predictive of return to play and minimal clinically important difference at a minimum 2-year follow-up after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction", Am J Sports Med, 45(12), pp.2784~2790 (2017)[DOI]
  31. Hill GN, "Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction : the short-term recovery using the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score(KOOS)", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 21(8), pp.1889~1894 (2013)[DOI]
  32. Ingelsrud LH, "Proportion of patients reporting acceptable symptoms or treatment failure and their associated KOOS values at 6 to 24 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction : a study from the norwegian knee ligament registry", Am J Sports Med, 43(8), pp.1902~1907 (2015)[DOI]
  33. Samuelsson K, "Equivalent knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores 12 and 24 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction : results from the Swedish national knee ligament register", Am J Sports Med, 45(9), pp.2085~2091 (2017)[DOI]
  34. Williams RJ, "Septic arthritis after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Diagnosis and management", Am J Sports Med, 25(2), pp.261~267 (1997)[DOI]
  35. Lo Presti M, "Graft-preserving arthroscopic debridement with hardware removal is effective for septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction : a clinical, arthrometric, and magnetic resonance imaging evaluation", Am J Sports Med, 48(8), pp.1907~1915 (2020)[DOI]
  36. Baez SA-O, "Psychological factors are associated with return to pre-injury levels of sport and physical activity after ACL reconstruction", Knee Surg, Sports Traumatol, Arthrosc, 28(2), pp.495~501 (2020)[DOI]
  37. Burland JP, "Psychosocial barriers after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction : a clinical review of factors influencing postoperative success", Sports Health, 11(6), pp.528~534 (2019)[DOI]
  38. Sonesson S, "Psychological factors are important to return to pre-injury sport activity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction : expect and motivate to satisfy", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 25(5), pp.1375~1384 (2017)[DOI]
  39. Pola E, "Onset of Berger disease after Staphylococcus aureus infection : septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction", Arthroscopy (2003)[DOI]
  40. Schub DL, "Long-term outcomes of postoperative septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction", Am J Sports Med, 40(12), pp.2764~2770 (2012)[DOI]
  41. Viola R, "An unusual epidemic of Staphylococcus-negative infections involving anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with salvage of the graft and function", Arthroscopy, 16(2), pp.173~177 (2000)[DOI]
  42. Wang C, "Septic arthritis after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction : a retrospective analysis of incidence, presentation, treatment, and cause", Arthroscopy, 25(3), pp.243~249 (2009)[DOI]

관련 논문AI추천

Evaluation of Infection after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction during a Short Period경희수, 김희준, 민승기, 이종철, 이현주대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2017 · 제29권 제1호Clinical Presentation of Staphylococcus epidermidis Septic Arthritis Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction김영모, Yong Bum Joo대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2012 · 제24권 제1호Evaluation parameters of graft maturation on second-look arthroscopy following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic reviewJae Hyun Jung, Ji Hoon Bae, Jong-Hyub Song, Sang­Gyun Kim대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2019 · 제31권 제1호Outcome Differences of Remnant-Preserving versus Non-Preserving Methods in Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis with Subgroup analysis권세원, 김용범, 김준범, 서기원, 원성훈, 최형석, Byung-Il Lee, Jae-Hyung Kim, Kyung-Dae Min, Su Yeon Park대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2020 · 제32권 Modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors affecting surgical failure after revision ACL reconstruction: a cohort studyChong-Hyuk Choi, Hyun-Soo Moon, Jin-Gyu Kim, Junwoo Byun, Kwangho Chung, Min Jung, Se-Han Jung, Seungmin Lee, Sung-Hwan Kim대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2024 · 제36권 Two-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction배기철, Byung-Chan Choi, Dong-Wan Kim, Du-Han Kim,대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2019 · 제31권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (47건)

Preserving coronal knee alignment of the knee (CPAK) in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty correlates with superior patient-reported outcomesHyuk‑Soo Han, 윤국로, Sung Eun Kim, 이명철, 이재민pp. 1-1Higher rates of fully preserved posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty using a double tibial cut: a prospective randomized controlled trialFrancesca Romana Ripani, Gianluca Cinotti, Giuseppe Giannicola, Giuseppe La Torre, Beatrice Perciballipp. 2-2Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient‑acceptable symptom state (PASS) in patients who have undergone total knee arthroplasty: a systematic reviewFilippo Migliorini, Nicola Maffulli, Luise Schäfer, Ulf Krister Hofmann, Andreas Bell, Francesco Simeonepp. 3-3Enhanced deep learning model enables accurate alignment measurement across diverse institutional imaging protocols남준우, 김종근, 김중일, Sung Eun Kim, 노두현pp. 4-4Efficacy and safety of different bupivacaine concentrations in periarticular infiltration combined with adductor canal block for bilateral total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trialSukanya Dej‑arkom, Rapeepat Narkbunnam, Somruedee Chatsirichareonkul, Weerawadee Chandranipapongse, Pawinee Pangthipampai, Arissara Iamaroon, Suwida Tangchittam, Keerati Charoencholvanichpp. 5-5
원문 보기