ArticleBone & joint open2022
Results of 'two-in-one' single-stage revision total knee arthroplasty for infection with associated bone loss : prospective five-year follow up.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Local antibiotic delivery via intra-articular catheter infusion for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Pooled it
- 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
- Single-stage revision in the management of prosthetic joint infections after total knee arthroplasty - A review of current concepts.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2024Article
- Antibiotic Prophylaxis in One-Stage Revision of Septic Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Scoping Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsPeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in approximately 1% to 2% of total knee arthroplasties (TKA) presenting multiple challenges, such as difficulty in diagnosis, technical complexity, and financial costs. Two-stage exchange is the gold standard for treating PJI but emerging evidence suggests 'two-in-one' single-stage revision as an alternative, delivering comparable outcomes, reduced morbidity, and cost-effectiveness. This study investigates five-year results of modified single-stage revision for treatment of PJI following TKA with bone loss.
methodsPatients were identified from prospective data on all TKA patients with PJI following the primary procedure. Inclusion criteria were: revision for PJI with bone loss requiring reconstruction, and a minimum five years' follow-up. Patients were followed up for recurrent infection and assessment of function. Tools used to assess function were Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and American Knee Society Score (AKSS).
resultsA total of 24 patients were included with a mean age of 72.7 years (SD 7.6), mean BMI of 33.3 kg/m
conclusion'Two-in-one' single-stage revision is effective for treating PJI following TKA with bone loss, providing patients with sustained improvements in outcomes and infection clearance up to five years post-procedure. 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.