ReviewCureus2025
A Comparison of 1.5-Stage and Two-Stage Revisions for Prosthetic Joint Infection in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis of Outcomes.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Toward Evidence-Informed Staging in Septic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: One-Stage, 1.5-Stage, or Two-Stage?Cureus · 2026Review
- Hofmann articulating spacer vs preformed cement spacer two stage revision in native septic knee arthritis: a comparative study.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention (DAIR) Protocol for the Management of Early Periprosthetic Joint Infections: An Eight-Year Single-Centre Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication of total hip and knee arthroplasty. Whilst two-stage revision has long been considered the gold standard treatment, the 1.5-stage revision has emerged as a viable alternative. However, the optimal surgical strategy remains a subject of debate. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the comparative outcomes of 1.5-stage versus two-stage revision for PJI. A systematic search of electronic data sources and bibliographic reference lists was conducted. All studies reporting comparative outcomes of 1.5-stage versus two-stage revision were included, and their risk of bias was assessed. Reinfection, failure of infection eradication, aseptic loosening, overall complications, readmission, and periprosthetic fracture were the evaluated outcome parameters. All comparative studies reporting on patients who underwent either a 1.5-stage or a two-stage revision were included in the final analysis. The 1.5-stage revision was associated with a significantly lower rate of reinfection (odds ratio (OR): 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40-0.96, p = 0.03) but a significantly higher rate of aseptic loosening (OR: 6.12; 95% CI 1.09-34.22, p = 0.04) when compared with the two-stage revision. No significant difference was found in the rates of infection eradication (OR: 1.35; 95% CI 0.80-2.27, p = 0.26), overall complications, readmission, dislocations, or periprosthetic fracture between the two groups. A subgroup analysis for knee PJI was consistent with the main analysis for reinfection. The meta-analysis of the best available evidence indicates that a 1.5-stage revision for PJI is associated with a lower rate of reinfection but a higher risk of aseptic loosening. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to definitively establish the optimal surgical strategy for managing PJI.
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.