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

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.