Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 13, 2026
Novel Diagnostics in Revision Arthroplasty: Implant Sonication and Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction
Published on: December 3, 2017
Can a 1.5-Stage Revision Be an Effective Alternative for Chronic Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infections? A Systematic
Enrico Festa1, Tiziana Ascione2, Domenico De Mauro3
1Orthopedic Unit, Department of Public Health, "Federico II" University, Naples, Italy.
Background:
A 1.5-stage revision could be an alternative to a 2-stage revision for treating hip and knee chronic periprosthetic infections, guaranteeing the maintenance of joint function and infection control and preventing infection-free patients from undergoing further surgery. Our systematic review aimed to answer several questions about the indication, the infection eradication rate, and the long-term functional outcome of 1.5-stage revisions used to treat chronic periprosthetic infections of the hip and knee.
Methods:
A systematic review of the literature was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, including studies dealing with the use of 1.5-stage and two-stage surgery for chronic periprosthetic joint infection following total knee arthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty The Coleman Methodology Score and the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies score were used to assess the quality of the studies. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the infection eradication rate using either the 1.5-stage revision or the 2-stage technique. A total of 494 patients (111 hips and 385 knees) who underwent 1.5-stage with a mean age of 69 years (range, 61 to 82) were identified in the ten included studies.
Results:
The most common cause of reoperation was the conversion to the definitive prosthesis, followed by aseptic loosening. Infection control was reached in 84.6% of the 1.5-stage and 76.1% of the two-stage cohorts. The infection recurrence rate was higher in the two-stage cohort than the 1.5-stage group (21.8 versus 14.3%).
Conclusions:
The 1.5-stage technique represents a valid treatment option in selected patients who have chronic periprosthetic joint infection who cannot undergo further surgeries, adding together the benefits of the 1- and 2-stage procedures. Furthermore, the 1.5-stage showed a better success rate in the infection resolution than the 2-stage technique.
