One-stage revision shows comparable infection control to two-stage revision in chronic periprosthetic joint infection.
This retrospective cohort study examined patients with chronic periprosthetic joint infection who underwent surgical treatment at an orthopedic center. The analysis compared a one-stage revision group (n=16) against a two-stage revision group (n=27). The primary outcome assessed infection control rates at 24 months postoperatively, with secondary outcomes including Harris hip score, Knee Society Score, and incidence of postoperative complications within 90 days. The mean follow-up duration was 29.5 ± 4.5 months.
Results indicated that infection control rates at 24 months were comparable between the two approaches, with one-stage revision achieving 87.5% (14/16) and two-stage revision achieving 88.9% (24/27); the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.89). Regarding functional outcomes, the one-stage group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in Harris hip score (52.8 ± 6.3 to 85.2 ± 5.1) compared to the two-stage group (55.1 ± 5.9 to 80.4 ± 6.7) (P = 0.021). Similarly, Knee Society Score improvement was significantly greater in the one-stage group (54.3 ± 6.5 to 84.7 ± 5.8) versus the two-stage group (56.4 ± 7.0 to 81.2 ± 6.9) (P = 0.032).
Postoperative complication rates within 90 days showed no significant difference between groups, with one-stage revision reporting 18.75% (3/16) and two-stage revision reporting 14.81% (4/27) (P > 0.05). No serious adverse events were reported. The study noted limitations associated with the prolonged treatment cycle and heavy medical burden inherent to two-stage revision. Funding sources and conflicts of interest were not reported. The authors suggest that one-stage revision may effectively avoid a second surgery, shorten the treatment cycle, and reduce patient suffering and economic burden.