0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Diagnosis and Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infections by Staphylococcus aureus after Hip Fracture: A Systematic Review of the Literature

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Hip arthroplasties are surgical procedures widely performed all over the world, seeking to return functionality, relieve pain, and improve the quality of life of patients affected by osteoarthritis, femoral neck fractures, osteonecrosis of the femoral head, among other etiologies. Periprosthetic joint infections are one of the most feared complications due to the high associated morbidity and mortality, with a high number of pathogens that may be associated with its etiology. The aim of the present study was to analyze aspects correlated with the occurrence of infection, diagnosis and prevention of periprosthetic joint infections in the hip associated with Staphylococcus aureus after corrective surgery for hip fractures. This is a systematic review of the literature carried out in the databases indexed in the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) carried out in accordance with the precepts established by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology. Twenty studies that addressed the diagnosis and prevention of periprosthetic joint infections after hip fractures were selected for analysis. It is observed that there is no consensus in the literature on preventive measures for the occurrence of such infectious processes. Among the risk factors for the occurrence and severity of infections by S. aureus after hip arthroplasties, obesity, longer surgical time, older age, immunosuppression, recent use of antibiotics, and multicomorbidities were mentioned. The use of biomarkers for early diagnosis, as well as screening, decolonization, and antibiotic prophylaxis processes are among the preventive procedures proposed in the literature.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The EBJIS definition of periprosthetic joint infection

            Aims The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be difficult. All current diagnostic tests have problems with accuracy and interpretation of results. Many new tests have been proposed, but there is no consensus on the place of many of these in the diagnostic pathway. Previous attempts to develop a definition of PJI have not been universally accepted and there remains no reference standard definition. Methods This paper reports the outcome of a project developed by the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS), and supported by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Study Group for Implant-Associated Infections (ESGIAI). It comprised a comprehensive review of the literature, open discussion with Society members and conference delegates, and an expert panel assessment of the results to produce the final guidance. Results This process evolved a three-level approach to the diagnostic continuum, resulting in a definition set and guidance, which has been fully endorsed by EBJIS, MSIS, and ESGIAI. Conclusion The definition presents a novel three-level approach to diagnosis, based on the most robust evidence, which will be useful to clinicians in daily practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):18–25.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review

              Background Qualitative systematic reviews or qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are increasingly recognised as a way to enhance the value of systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical trials. They can explain the mechanisms by which interventions, evaluated within trials, might achieve their effect. They can investigate differences in effects between different population groups. They can identify which outcomes are most important to patients, carers, health professionals and other stakeholders. QES can explore the impact of acceptance, feasibility, meaningfulness and implementation-related factors within a real world setting and thus contribute to the design and further refinement of future interventions. To produce valid, reliable and meaningful QES requires systematic identification of relevant qualitative evidence. Although the methodologies of QES, including methods for information retrieval, are well-documented, little empirical evidence exists to inform their conduct and reporting. Methods This structured methodological overview examines papers on searching for qualitative research identified from the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Methodology Register and from citation searches of 15 key papers. Results A single reviewer reviewed 1299 references. Papers reporting methodological guidance, use of innovative methodologies or empirical studies of retrieval methods were categorised under eight topical headings: overviews and methodological guidance, sampling, sources, structured questions, search procedures, search strategies and filters, supplementary strategies and standards. Conclusions This structured overview presents a contemporaneous view of information retrieval for qualitative research and identifies a future research agenda. This review concludes that poor empirical evidence underpins current information practice in information retrieval of qualitative research. A trend towards improved transparency of search methods and further evaluation of key search procedures offers the prospect of rapid development of search methods.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo)
                Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo)
                10.1055/s-00042410
                Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia
                Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda. (Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil )
                0102-3616
                1982-4378
                21 March 2024
                February 2024
                1 March 2024
                : 59
                : 1
                : e21-e28
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Departamento da Liga Acadêmica de Ortopedia e Traumatologia da UNIFACS, Universidade Salvador (UNIFACS), Salvador, BA, Brasil
                [2 ]Serviço de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital Universitário de Canoas, Canoas, RS, Brasil
                Author notes
                Endereço para correspondência Bianca Gabriella de Oliveira Rua Araçari, número 18, bairro Muchila 2 (dois), 44005756, Feira de Santana, BahiaBrasil bianca.oliveira43@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0503-7999
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6769-1964
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0051-7985
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8405-4203
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4827-3054
                Article
                RBO-D-22-00196
                10.1055/s-0043-1776019
                10957261
                38524719
                2db8764c-0767-438a-85aa-f6f43e41bb52
                The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 15 July 2022
                : 08 November 2022
                Funding
                Suporte Financeiro O presente estudo não recebeu nenhum suporte financeiro de fontes públicas, comerciais ou sem fins lucrativos.
                Financial Support The present study received no financial support from either public, commercial, or not-for-profit sources.
                Categories
                Revisão Sistemática e Metanálise
                Quadril

                arthroplasty, replacement, hip,hip prosthesis,staphylococcal infections

                Comments

                Comment on this article