ReviewCureus2024
A Meta-Analysis of Success Rates of One-Stage Versus Two-Stage Revisions in Knee Prosthetic Joint Infections.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Are free flaps a reliable solution to treat massive soft tissue defects in patients with knee periprosthetic joint infection? A systematic review and meta-analysis.EFORT open reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty in Patients with a History of Native Joint Septic Arthritis: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of Risk Factors of Prosthetic Joint Infection.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Toward Evidence-Informed Staging in Septic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: One-Stage, 1.5-Stage, or Two-Stage?Cureus · 2026Review
- The PJI-TNM Classification as Predictor for Revision-Free Implant Survival Rates in Patients with Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip or Knee Joint.Infectious disease reports · 2025Article
- Periprosthetic Joint Infection (PJI).The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2025Review
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
Prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) pose significant challenges following total joint arthroplasties and cause profound complications. They are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. One-stage revision involves the removal of the infected implant and simultaneous re-implantation of a new prosthesis in a single surgical procedure. The two-stage approach is traditionally more common in the United States and follows a deliberate sequence: the infected implant is first removed, followed by a period of antibiotic therapy, and then a second surgery for implant reinsertion. While two-stage revisions were traditionally considered the gold standard, recent advancements have introduced one-stage revisions as a viable alternative. One-stage revision offers the advantage of being a single procedure, significantly reducing the patient's downtime without a functioning knee. Currently, there has not been a comprehensive exploration of the comparative outcomes between two-stage revisions and one-stage revisions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the outcomes of both one- and two-stage revisions for total knee arthroplasties (TKAs), by utilizing comparison studies as the foundation for analysis. Our search encompassed databases such as MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), Embase, and Cochrane to identify articles examining the comparative efficacy and outcomes of one- and two-stage revision procedures between January 2000 and June 2023. We employed keywords relevant to knee PJIs to identify comparative studies reporting on success rates, reinfection rates, microbiological findings, and other pertinent outcomes. Statistical analysis for this investigation was performed using Review Manager 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020) with a standard significance threshold set at a p-value less than .05. This meta-analysis incorporated six comparison articles and 802 patients. Two-stage revisions (547 patients) were associated with greater success rates (i.e., infection eradication) than one-stage revisions (255 patients) (p = .03). The studies did not suggest a difference in the microbiology of the infections. Two-stage revisions are associated with higher success rates than one-stage revisions in the treatment of knee PJIs. Future randomized controlled trials should evaluate the optimization of the management of these complications.
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.