Abstract:BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication of total knee arthroplasty. Two-stage revision is the most widely used technique and considered as the most effective for treating periprosthetic knee infection. The one-stage revision strategy is an emerging alternative option, however, its performance in comparison to the two-stage strategy is unclear. We therefore sought to ask if there was a difference in re-infection rates and other clinical outcomes when comparing the one-stage to the two-stage revision strategy.OBJECTIVE: Our first objective was to compare re-infection (new and recurrent infections) rates for one- and two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic knee infection. Our second objective was to compare between the two revision strategies, clinical outcomes as measured by postoperative Knee Society Knee score, Knee Society Function score, Hospital for Special Surgery knee score, WOMAC score, and range of motion.DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, reference lists of relevant studies to August 2015, and correspondence with investigators.STUDY SELECTION: Longitudinal (prospective or retrospective cohort) studies conducted in generally unselected patients with periprosthetic knee infection treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and with re-infection outcomes reported within two years of revision surgery. No clinical trials comparing both revision strategies were identified.REVIEW METHODS: Two independent investigators extracted data and discrepancies were resolved by consensus with a third investigator. Re-infection rates from 10 one-stage studies (423 participants) and 108 two-stage studies (5,129 participants) were meta-analysed using random-effect models after arcsine transformation.RESULTS: The rate (95% confidence intervals) of re-infection was 7.6% (3.4-13.1) in one-stage studies. The corresponding re-infection rate for two-stage revision was 8.8% (7.2-10.6). In subgroup analyses, re-infection rates remained generally similar for several study-level and clinically relevant characteristics. Postoperative clinical outcomes of knee scores and range of motion were similar for both revision strategies.LIMITATIONS: Potential bias owing to the limited number of one-stage revision studies and inability to explore heterogeneity in greater detail.CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence from aggregate published data suggest the one-stage revision strategy may be as effective as the two-stage revision strategy in treating infected knee prostheses in generally unselected patients. Further investigation is warranted.SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015017327.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-stage vs two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection: a call for a prospective randomized trial

Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-stage versus two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection after knee arthroplasty: a call for a randomised trial

One-Stage Versus Two-Stage Revision Surgery for Periprosthetic Hip Infection: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

A Meta-Analysis of Success Rates of One-Stage Versus Two-Stage Revisions in Knee Prosthetic Joint Infections

Re-Infection Outcomes Following One- And Two-Stage Surgical Revision of Infected Knee Prosthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Efficacy and safety of two-stage revision for patients with culture-negative versus culture-positive periprosthetic joint infection: a single-center retrospective study

Revision Rate of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Post Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty of 34 Hospitals in China Between 2015 and 2017: a Multi-Center Survey

Ninety-day postoperative mortality and complications in continuous and unselected single-stage revisions for chronic periprosthetic joint infection

Single-stage revision in the management of prosthetic joint infections after total knee arthroplasty - A review of current concepts

Retrospective Study from a Single Center to Identify Risk Factors Associated with Reinfection in Patients Undergoing 2-Stage Revision Surgery for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

Outcomes of single- vs two-stage primary joint arthroplasty for septic arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Two stage revision: indications, techniques and results

Can a 1.5-Stage Revision Be an Effective Alternative for Chronic Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infections? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Mortality and re-revision following single-stage and two-stage revision surgery for the management of infected primary hip arthroplasty in England and Wales

The Proper Timing of Second-Stage Revision in Treating Periprosthetic Knee Infection: Reliable Indicators and Risk Factors.

Failed 2-Stage Revision Knee Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection-Patient Characteristics and Outcomes

What Is the Most Effective Treatment for Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Joint Arthroplasty in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis?: A Systematic Review

Comparable Results of Single and Two-Stage Exchange for Select Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infection

Periprosthetic Joint Infections of the Knee—Comparison of Different Treatment Algorithms

Microbiology of Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infections in Surgically Revised Cases from 34 Centers in Mainland China

Management of the infected total hip or knee arthroplasty with two-staged revisions