ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Detailed Revision Risk Analysis after Single- vs. Two-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Retrospective Tertiary Center Analysis.
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-stage vs two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection: a call for a prospective randomized trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Characterizing recurrent infections after one-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection of the knee: a systematic review of the literature.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023Pooled it
- Toward Evidence-Informed Staging in Septic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: One-Stage, 1.5-Stage, or Two-Stage?Cureus · 2026Review
- Modulating Micrococcal Nuclease-Triggered Antibiotic Releases for One-Stage Revisions ofACS infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Animal Models of Orthopedic Implant-Associated Infections and Revisions.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2025Review
- One-stage knee replacement shows similar healing rates in patients with negative or positive preoperative cultures: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2025Article
- Functional and Radiological Outcome of Simultaneous Bilateral Total Knee Replacement in a Tertiary Care Centre : A Quasi-prospective Study.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2024Article
- 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.EFORT open reviews · 2024Article
- Microbial Persistence, Replacement and Local Antimicrobial Therapy in Recurrent Bone and Joint Infection.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Microbiological Advantages of Open Incisional Biopsies for the Diagnosis of Suspected Periprosthetic Joint Infections.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Antibiotics in Orthopedic Infections.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains one of the most common causes of revision knee arthroplasty. Controversy continues to surround the proper operative technique of PJI in knee arthroplasty with single- or two-stage replacement. Significant variations are seen in the eradication rates of PJI and in implant survival rates. This detailed retrospective analysis of a single tertiary center is intended to provide further data and insight comparing single- and two-stage revision surgery. A retrospective analysis of all revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgeries from 2013 to 2019 was performed and screened with respect to single- or two-stage TKA revisions. Single- and two-stage revisions were analyzed with regard to implant survival, revision rate, microbiological spectrum, and other typical demographic characteristics. A total of 63 patients were included, with 15 patients undergoing single-stage revision and 48 patients undergoing two-stage revision. The mean follow-up time was 40.7 to 43.7 months. Statistically, no difference was found between both groups in overall survival (54.4% vs. 70.1%,
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.