Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2026

Novel Diagnostics in Revision Arthroplasty: Implant Sonication and Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction
Published on: December 3, 2017
One- versus two-stage septic hip and knee revision surgery: a comparative cohort outcome study with short- to
Michelle M J Jacobs1,1, Petra J C Heesterbeek2,2, Karin Veerman3,3
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sint Maartenskliniek, Hengstdal 3, 6574NA Ubbergen, the Netherlands.
Abstract:
Introduction: One-stage revisions seem to have similar reinfection rates compared to two-stage revisions for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections based on retrospective cohort studies with a large variety of indications and treatment protocols. This study aimed to compare outcomes between comparable groups of one-stage and two-stage revision patients. Materials and methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study, where equal numbers of one-stage and two-stage patients (knee: ; hip: ) were randomly included with the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patient characteristics and infection-related outcomes at latest follow-up were obtained via chart review. Functional outcomes (knee: Knee Society Score (KSS), range of motion (ROM), and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain and satisfaction; hip: Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Shortform (HOOS-PS), VAS pain and satisfaction, and European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level version (EQ5D-3L)) preoperatively (hip only) and at 1-year follow-up were extracted from a revision database. Outcomes were compared between one- and two-stage groups and for knee and hip cases separately. Results: One- and two-stage groups were comparable for baseline characteristics. Reinfection occurred for both the knee and hip cohorts in one one-stage patient and one two-stage patient ( for both cohorts). More adverse events, of which two were spacer-related, were observed in two-stage hip patients ( ) compared to in one-stage patients ( ) ( ). Functional outcomes did not differ between one- and two-stage patients for both knee and hip cohorts. Conclusions: This study showed no differences in terms of reinfection rates and functional outcomes between comparable groups of one- and two-stage septic knee and hip revision patients. A trend towards more adverse events in two-stage hip patients was seen, which was partly due to spacer complications.
More Related Videos
09:51The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022
05:30Surgical Approach and Complications of Stand-alone Lateral Trans-Psoas Interbody Fusion
Published on: February 14, 2025