ReviewEFORT open reviews2019
Outcome of single-stage versus two-stage exchange for revision knee arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic infection.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
90 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 160 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biopsychosocial needs and complementary treatments for patients undergoing management for periprosthetic joint infection following hip or knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.EFORT open reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Comparable clinical outcomes of culture-negative and culture-positive periprosthetic joint infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Pooled it
- Translation-driven design: development of an antibiotic-loaded hydrogel for the management of orthopaedic device-related infection.Bioactive materials · 2026Article
- Toward Evidence-Informed Staging in Septic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: One-Stage, 1.5-Stage, or Two-Stage?Cureus · 2026Review
- Preoperative predictors of spacer retention and mortality in two-stage revision for infected total hip arthroplasties: a single-center experience of 90 patients.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Article
- Differential impact of single interim spacer exchanges on survival outcomes in two-stage exchange arthroplasty for PJIs: a comparative analysis with minimum 5-year follow-up.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Surgical revision in the presence of an S. aureus infection increases virulence factor expression and activates a multi-tissue inflammatory response.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2025Article
- Biomechanical analysis of additional vancomycin in articulating knee spacers: determining the threshold for structural failure.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Gastrocnemius Flap Reconstruction in Single-Stage Re-Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for Infection with Soft-Tissue Defects: A Limb Salvage Approach.The American journal of case reports · 2025Article
- In Vivo Antibiotic Elution and Inflammatory Response During Two-Stage Total Knee Arthroplasty Revision: A Microdialysis Pilot Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Early and Accurate Pathogen Identification Based on mNGS: Key to Timely Therapy for Mycoplasma Prosthetic Joint Infection.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of the efficacy of one-stage revision surgery guided by precise pathogen diagnosis and conventional two-stage revision for chronic knee periprosthetic joint infection.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2025Article
- Article
- MIKROBE: a feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial of one-stage or two-stage surgery for prosthetic knee infection.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2025Article
- Editorial Comment: Selected Proceedings From the 2023 Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Meeting.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Article
- No difference in failure between static, articulating, and prosthetic low-friction spacers for periprosthetic joint infection of total knee arthroplasty.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2025Article
- Short-term follow-up of antibiotic-loaded calcium sulfate in treating chronic periprosthetic joint infection during two-stage revision.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Long-Term Outcome of Treating Periprosthetic Hip Joint Infection with Local Antibiotics Delivered Through Antibiotic-Impregnated Calcium Hydroxyapatite.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The top ten benefits of one-stage septic exchange in the management of periprosthetic joint infections.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- What Are the Research Highlights of Periprosthetic Joint Infections From the 100 Most Cited Studies?Arthroplasty today · 2024Article
30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The gold standard for treating chronic periprosthetic joint infection is still considered to be double-stage exchange revision. The purpose of this review is to analyse the difference in terms of eradication rates and functional outcome after single- and double-stage prosthetic exchange for chronic periprosthetic joint infection around the knee.We reviewed full text articles written in English from 1992 to 2018 reporting the success rates and functional outcomes of either single-stage exchange or double-stage exchange for knee arthroplasty revision performed for chronic infection. In the case of double-stage exchange, particular attention was paid to the type of spacer: articulating or static.In all, 32 articles were analysed: 14 articles for single-stage including 687 patients and 18 articles for double-stage including 1086 patients. The average eradication rate was 87.1% for the one-stage procedure and 84.8% for the two-stage procedure. The functional outcomes were similar in both groups: the average Knee Society Knee Score was 80.0 in the single-stage exchange group and 77.8 in the double-stage exchange. The average range of motion was 91.4° in the single-stage exchange group and 97.8° in the double-stage exchange group.Single-stage exchange appears to be a viable alternative to two -stage exchange in cases of chronic periprosthetic joint infection around the knee, provided there are no contra-indications, producing similar results in terms of eradication rates and functional outcomes, and offering the advantage of a unique surgical procedure, lower morbidity and reduced costs. Cite this article:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.