ReviewJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024
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?
Review in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Improved alignment accuracy but similar early clinical outcomes with NAVIO imageless robotic-assisted vs. conventional total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- Toward Evidence-Informed Staging in Septic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: One-Stage, 1.5-Stage, or Two-Stage?Cureus · 2026Review
- Clinical and psychosocial impact of limited mobility during the interstage period of two-stage revision arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection: a state-of-the-art review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Review
- Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Biofilm Pathogenesis, Immune Dysregulation, and Emerging Prosthetic Interface Strategies.Biology · 2026Review
- Differential sensitivity of leukocyte populations toInfection and immunity · 2026Article
- One-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection following total knee arthroplasty with sinus tract: a mid-to short-term follow-up study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Review of Recent Advances in Managing Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty: DAIR Technique.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2026Review
- Article
- Salvage re-revision total hip arthroplasty for severe femoral and acetabular bone defect complicated by periprosthetic joint infection and stem loosening: insights from geriatric orthopedics.Journal of surgical case reports · 2025Article
- Molecular diagnostics for perioperative microbial identification in periprosthetic joint infection: A scoping review and proposal of a diagnostic flow chart.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Surgical treatment of periprosthetic joint infection: Two stage or one stage?Joint diseases and related surgery · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty is a complication that affects approximately 2-3% of patients. The management of this issue is complicated and expensive for both the patients and the healthcare system. Multiple management options are available including antibiotic suppressive therapy, surgical management, and salvage procedures. Surgical management is considered a popular option for treating PJI, with multiple available surgical techniques, including single-stage revision arthroplasty and two-stage revision arthroplasty among others. Two-stage revision has been considered the gold standard for treating PJI. This method consists of two surgical procedures with a time interval in between, the first procedure aims to eradicate the infection along with implanting either a static or a mobile spacer, while the second intervention aims to remove the spacer and implant a new prothesis. During the interval period the patient is closely monitored through a handful of laboratory tests and clinical signs that help in assessing the optimal time of undertaking the second stage. However, in recent years, the single-stage method has gained much attention for its comparable outcomes and fewer complications. Contrary to the two-stage method, the single-stage approach consists only of one procedure in which the old infected prosthesis is removed and a new one is implanted. Many articles have compared the two methods over the years but have not agreed on a particular approach to be more potent in eliminating infection and providing better outcomes. Plenty of questions are yet to be answered regarding the two methods, including the superior type of spacer, interim period duration, and single-stage revision inclusion criteria. We herein, aim to address these issues, highlighting recent advances in managing this morbid complication and discussing controversial topics in the staged procedures.
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.