ReviewCureus2026
Toward Evidence-Informed Staging in Septic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: One-Stage, 1.5-Stage, or Two-Stage?
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains one of the most consequential complications in adult reconstruction because successful treatment requires simultaneous infection control, restoration of a mechanically durable knee, preservation of function, and minimization of surgical morbidity. Two-stage exchange has traditionally been regarded as the reference strategy for chronic knee PJI, but contemporary comparative evidence increasingly challenges its routine use as the default for all patients. This narrative review synthesizes evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analyses, comparative cohorts, propensity-matched analyses, and decision-analytic studies evaluating one-stage, 1.5-stage, and two-stage septic revision TKA. The available data indicate that infection control after one-stage revision is broadly comparable with, and in some analyses superior to, two-stage revision in carefully selected patients. Conversely, two-stage exchange retains a central role in patients with severe host compromise, complex bone or soft-tissue defects, multidrug-resistant or fungal infection, uncertain microbiology, and reconstructive instability. The 1.5-stage strategy has emerged as a pragmatic function-preserving alternative, with encouraging infection-free survivorship and lower treatment burden; however, its long-term mechanical durability remains incompletely defined, particularly because aseptic loosening is consistently identified as a key risk. Evidence-based staging should therefore move beyond a binary hierarchy and toward an algorithm integrating host status, organism profile, soft-tissue envelope, bone loss, fixation requirements, prior failure, timing, and patient goals. Current evidence supports individualized multidisciplinary decision-making rather than routine use of any single staging strategy, while highlighting the need for prospective knee-specific studies using standardized definitions, patient-reported outcomes, mechanical survivorship, and cost-effectiveness endpoints.
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.