ArticleOrthopedic reviews2025
Long-term outcomes of single-stage versus two-stage revision for prosthetic joint infection: a retrospective, observational cohort study.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of a Bioresorbable Antibacterial Coating (DACAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- One-Stage Revision for Low-Grade Periprosthetic Infection with Staphylococcus hominis Following Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty: Case Report and Literature Review.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Reevaluation of surgical strategies for chronic periprosthetic joint infection: a comparison of short-term outcomes between one-stage and two-stage revision.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
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
Background & objective: To compare long-term outcomes of single-stage and two-stage revision procedures for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total joint arthroplasty, with a focus on infection clearance and treatment failure rates in demographically similar patient cohorts. # Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary referral centre between 2011 and 2021. Patients who underwent either single-stage or two-stage revision for PJI and completed a minimum of two years of follow-up were included. They were identified from electronic health records and hospital databases. Infection clearance at final follow-up was the primary outcome. Treatment failure was defined as need for further revision or long-term suppressive antibiotics. Results: A total of 75 patients were included, with 50 undergoing single-stage revision and 25 undergoing two-stage revision. The groups were similar for age, joint type and MacPherson host grade. Mean follow-up was 4.2 years (range 2-9). Infection clearance was achieved in 48 patients (96%) in the single-stage group and 23 patients (92%) in the two-stage group (p = 0.624). Treatment failure occurred in two patients (4%) in the single-stage group and in two patients (8%) in the two-stage group. Patients in the single-stage group received significantly longer courses of post-operative antibiotics (mean 6.2 weeks vs 4.8 weeks; p= 0.0058). All-cause 5-year and 10-year mortality was similar between groups (p=0.85). Conclusion: In patients with chronic PJI and similar demographic profiles, selected patients undergoing single-stage revision demonstrated comparable infection clearance and mortality compared with two-stage revision. These findings support the increasing use of single-stage revision in appropriately selected patients.
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.