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.

Revision TKA with a distal femoral replacement is at high risk of reinfection after two-stage exchange for periprosthetic knee joint infection

Use of Hinged Implants for Multi-Stage Revision Knee Arthroplasty for Severe Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Remission Rate and Outcomes After a Minimum Follow-Up of 5 Years

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

Two-stage knee arthrodesis with a modular intramedullary nail due to septic failure of revision total knee arthroplasty with extensor mechanism deficiency

One- or Two-Stage Reimplantation for Infected Total Knee Prosthesis?

High Rates of Early Septic Failure, But Low Rates of Aseptic Loosening after Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty with Contemporary Rotating-Hinge Prostheses

Infection and periprosthetic fracture are the leading causes of failure after aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty

Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention (DAIR) Plus Offers Similar Periprosthetic Joint Infection Treatment Success Rates to Two-Stage Revision in Oncologic Megaprosthesis

Modular fluted tapered stems in two-stage reimplantation of previously infected total hip arthroplasties

Complications associated with 133 static, antibiotic-laden spacers after TKA

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

Differences in Success Rate of Two-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Knee Depending on the Applied Definition

Survivorship and Outcomes of 2-Stage Revision for Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty at a Mean of 7-Year Follow-Up

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

Re-revision and mortality rate following revision total hip arthroplasty for infection

Two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection after hip and knee arthroplasty

[Low UKA implantation volume, comorbidities, male sex, and implantation of constrained TKA are risk factors for septic revision after knee arthroplasty implantation : A register-based study from the German Arthroplasty Register]

Intramedullary positive tissue culture increases the risk of re-infection following one-stage septic revision total knee arthroplasty

Prosthetic knee infection by resistant bacteria: the worst-case scenario

Predictors of outcome following two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty

Nonmechanical Revision Indications Portend Repeat Limb-Salvage Failure Following Total Femoral Replacement