Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 7, 2025

Author Spotlight: Advancing Endoscopic Ossiculoplasty – Techniques, Innovations, and Practical Guidance for Clinical Integration
Published on: January 26, 2024
Single-stage versus two-stage bone flap reconstruction in chronic osteomyelitis: Multicenter outcomes comparison
Alice Piccato1, Alessandro Crosio2, Andrea Antonini3
1Orthopaedic and Traumatology Department, ASL TO3 Ospedale Civile E. Agnelli Pinerolo, Pinerolo, Italy.
Background:
Chronic osteomyelitis is an invalidating disease, and its severity grows according to the infection's particular features. The Cierny-Maiden criteria classify it according to the anatomical aspects (I to IV) and also by physiological class (A host being in good immune condition and B hosts being locally (L) or systemically (S) compromised). The surgical approach to chronic osteomyelitis involves radical debridement and dead space reconstruction. Two-stage management with delayed reconstruction is the most common surgical management, while one-stage treatment with concomitant reconstruction is a more aggressive approach with less available literature. Which method gives the best results is unclear. The purpose of this study is to compare single and two-stage techniques.
Methods:
The authors carried out a retrospective multicentric cohort study to compare two primary outcomes (bone union and infection healing) in one versus two-stage reconstructions with vascularized bone flaps in 23 cases of limb osteomyelitis (22 patients, 23 extremities). Thirteen subjects (56.5%) sustained a single-stage treatment consisting of a single surgery of radical debridement, concomitant soft tissue coverage, and bone reconstruction. Ten cases (43.5%) sustained a two-stage approach: radical debridement, simultaneous primary soft tissue closure, and antibiotic PMMA spacers implanted in 7 patients.
Results:
No statistical differences were observed between one- and two-stage approaches in bone union rate and infection recurrence risk. Even though bone union seems to be higher and faster in the two-stage than in the one-stage group, and all infection relapses occurred in the one-stage group, data did not statistically confirm these differences. Two of the six cases (33.3%) of bone nonunion occurred in compromised hosts (representing only 17.4% of our sample). The B-hosts bone union rate was 50.0%, while it reached 78.9% in A-hosts, but the difference was not statistically significant (p = .5392). Infection recurrence was higher in B-hosts than in A-hosts (p = .0086) and in Pseudomonas aeruginosa sustained infections (p = .0208), but in the latter case, the treatment strategy did not influence the outcome (p = .4000).
Conclusions:
Bone union and infection healing rates are comparable between one and two-stage approaches. Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections have a higher risk of infection relapse, with similar effectiveness of one- and two-stage strategies. B-hosts have a higher infection recurrence rate without comparable data between the two approaches. Further studies with a larger sample size are required to confirm our results and define B-hosts' best strategy.
Level Of Evidence:
Level III of evidence, retrospective cohort study investigating the results of treatments.
More Related Videos
07:35Creating Rigidly Stabilized Fractures for Assessing Intramembranous Ossification, Distraction Osteogenesis, or Healing of Critical Sized Defects
Published on: April 11, 2012
07:41An Intramedullary Locking Nail for Standardized Fixation of Femur Osteotomies to Analyze Normal and Defective Bone Healing in Mice
Published on: November 13, 2016
Related Concept Videos
Fractures: Bone Repair
Minor fractures with no bone displacement are treated by immobilizing the fractured bone using a cast or splint. However, in the case of fractures with displaced bones, the broken bones are repositioned before immobilization to ensure successful healing without deformation and loss of function. The realignment of fractured bone ends is performed through a process called reduction. If the...
Flail Chest-II
Assessment:
1. Clinical Evaluation:
History: