ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021
One-stage versus two-stage revision of the infected knee arthroplasty - a randomized multicenter clinical trial study protocol.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
One-stage Versus Two-stage Revision of the Infected Knee Arthroplasty. a Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial.
Outcome After Revisions of Infected Knee Arthroplasties - a Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Translation-driven design: development of an antibiotic-loaded hydrogel for the management of orthopaedic device-related infection.Bioactive materials · 2026Article
- Animal Models of Orthopedic Implant-Associated Infections and Revisions.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2025Review
- Review of recent advances in the diagnosis and management of periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty part 2: single-stage or two-stage surgical technique?Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Review
- Survival, functional outcome and satisfaction of first revision total knee arthroplasty at a mean eleven-year follow-up.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023Article
- Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures and Quality-Adjusted Life Years Following One- and Two-Stage Septic Knee Exchange.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Sonication of revised hip and knee prostheses detects occult infections, improves clinical outcomes and prevents re - revisions. A case series study.Infection prevention in practice · 2022Article
- What is the rate of reinfection with different and difficult-to-treat bacteria after failed one-stage septic knee exchange?International orthopaedics · 2022Article
- Failure Analysis in Multiple TKA Revisions-Periprosthetic Infections Remain Surgeons' Nemesis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- [Strategic approach in periprosthetic joint infections].Der Unfallchirurg · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA two-stage prosthesis exchange procedure has been the gold standard in surgical treatment of the chronically infected knee arthroplasty so far. This includes 2 surgeries/hospitalizations and an interim period of 2-3 months between surgeries with impaired health, functional status and quality of life of the patients. A one-stage exchange procedure holds many obvious advantages compared to the two-stage approach, but outcomes of a one-stage versus two-stage procedures have never been investigated in a randomized clinical trial. The purpose of this study is primarily to investigate time-adjusted differences in functional status of patients after one-stage versus two-stage revision. Secondary, to report time-adjusted differences in quality of life, complications (including re-revisions due to infection) and mortality.
methodsThis study is a pragmatic, multi-center, randomized, non-inferiority trial comparing one-stage versus two-stage revision of the infected knee arthroplasty. Seven Danish hospitals are currently participating in the study, but additional hospitals can enter the study if adhering to protocol. Ninety-six patients will be included prospectively. Follow-up will be with PROM-questionnaires and clinical controls up to 10 years. The patients who are not able to participate in the randomized trial are followed in a parallel cohort study. PROM'S: Oxford Knee Score and EQ5D + EQ5D VAS questionnaires are completed preoperatively and sent out to the study participants at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 24 months as well as 5 and 10 years postoperatively. In addition a tailor made cost questionnaire on the non-treating hospital resource use, community health and social service use, travel costs, time off work and informal care are sent out. DISCUSSION: If one of the two treatment alternatives is found superior in both domains of quality of life (both knee-specific and generic) and health economics, that treatment should be promoted. Other outcomes will open informed discussions about treatment strategies for periprosthetic knee infections.
trial registrationThe randomized trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT03435679 , initial release date January 31, 2018 and the cohort study is registered with ID NCT04427943 , submitted January 8, 2020 and posted June 11, 2020.
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.