ArticleArthroplasty (London, England)2025
Comparison of the efficacy of one-stage revision surgery guided by precise pathogen diagnosis and conventional two-stage revision for chronic knee periprosthetic joint infection.
Article in Arthroplasty (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Long-term outcomes of single-stage versus two-stage revision for prosthetic joint infection: a retrospective, observational cohort study.Orthopedic reviews · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThis study aimed to assess whether the clinical outcomes of one-stage revision surgery for chronic knee periprosthetic joint infection (kPJI), guided by precision pathogen diagnosis strategies, are non-inferior to those of conventional two-stage revision surgery.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on chronic kPJI patients who underwent precision pathogen detection and revision arthroplasty at the First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University between January 2016 and September 2022. Clinical characteristics, pathogen detection rates, targeted antibiotic therapy, reinfection rates, and functional outcomes were compared between patients who underwent one-stage and two-stage revision surgeries.
resultsThirty patients who underwent one-stage revision surgery with pathogen detection through precision pathogen diagnosis strategies were included in this study and were matched with 30 patients who received two-stage revision surgery via propensity score matching (PSM). The baseline clinical characteristics did not significantly differ between the two groups. Utilizing our optimized pathogen detection protocol, successful pathogen identification was achieved in all cases across both groups. The median duration of intravenous antibiotic administration in the one-stage revision cohort was 16.5 (8.5,23.0) days, followed by a 6-week course of sequential oral antibiotics. Both the one-stage and two-stage revision groups had 3 cases of reinfection each, with no statistically significant difference in success rates between the groups (P > 0.999). Furthermore, no significant differences were found in the range of motion (ROM) (P = 0.332) or Knee Society score (KSS) (P = 0.117) between the one-stage and two-stage revision groups at the 2-year postoperative follow-up. The Kaplan‒Meier survival curves for prosthesis infection-free survival nearly overlapped, with no statistically significant differences between the two groups (P = 0.675).
conclusionWhen pathogen identification is achieved through precision diagnostic strategies, the efficacy of one-stage revision surgery combined with targeted antibiotic therapy is comparable to that of two-stage revision surgery.
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.