Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 9, 2026
Novel Diagnostics in Revision Arthroplasty: Implant Sonication and Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction
Published on: December 3, 2017
One-stage vs. two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection after total elbow arthroplasty: A systematic
Robert Hwang1, Al-Achraf Khoriati1, James Conville2
1Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Ashford and St Peter's NHS Foundation Trust, Chertsey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Background:
Revisions for periprosthetic joint infection following total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) can be performed using one- or two-stage protocols. Evidence remains inconclusive regarding which approach results in lower reinfection rates. This study aimed to compare reinfection outcomes. Secondary outcomes were planned but not analysed due to limited data.
Methods:
PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting reinfection following one- or two-stage TEA revision. Two reviewers independently extracted data, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Pooled reinfection rates were calculated using random effects models.
Results:
Four studies (16 patients) reported one-stage revision, with a pooled reinfection rate of 18.8% (95% CI: 3.75-57.7%) and no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Fifteen studies (235 patients) reported two-stage revision, with a pooled reinfection rate of 22.0% (95% CI: 13.0-34.3%) and low heterogeneity (I2 = 10%). Sensitivity analysis excluding one outlier increased the rate to 24.3% (95% CI: 14.7-37.4%).
Conclusion:
Evidence comparing one- and two-stage revision for infected TEA is limited. Pooled reinfection rates were numerically similar, but data are insufficient to determine comparative effectiveness. Prospective studies are required.