Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 May 24:52:102431.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2024.102431. eCollection 2024 May.

Single-stage revision in the management of prosthetic joint infections after total knee arthroplasty - A review of current concepts

Tej Nikhil Pradhan  1   2 , Vibhu Krishnan Viswanathan  3 , Ravi Badge  4   5   6   7 , Nikhil Pradhan  4   8   5
Affiliations

Single-stage revision in the management of prosthetic joint infections after total knee arthroplasty - A review of current concepts

Tej Nikhil Pradhan et al. J Clin Orthop Trauma. .

Abstract

Introduction: Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA); and the gold standard surgical approach involves a two-staged, revision TKA (TSR). Owing to the newer, emerging evidence on this subject, there has been gradual shift towards a single-stage revision approach (SSR), with the purported benefits of mitigated patient morbidity, decreased complications and reduced costs. However, there is still substantial lacuna in the evidence regarding the safety and outcome of the two approaches in chronic PJI. This study aimed to comprehensively review of the literature on SSR; and evaluate its role within Revision TKA post PJI.

Methods: The narrative review involved a comprehensive search of the databases (Embase, Medline and Pubmed), conducted on 20th of January 2024 using specific key words. All the manuscripts discussing the use of SSR for the management of PJI after TKA were considered for the review. Among the screened manuscripts, opinion articles, letters to the editor and non-English manuscripts were excluded.

Results: The literature search yielded a total 232 studies. Following a detailed scrutiny of these manuscripts, 26 articles were finally selected. The overall success rate following SSR is reported to range from 73 % to 100 % (and is comparable to TSR). SSR is performed in PJI patients with bacteriologically-proven infection, adequate soft tissue cover, immuno-competent host and excellent tolerance to antibiotics. The main difference between SSR and TSR is that the interval between the 2 stages is only a few minutes instead of 6 weeks. Appropriate topical, intraoperative antibiotic therapy, followed by adequate postoperative systemic antibiotic cover are necessary to ascertain good outcome. Some of the major benefits of SSR over TSR include reduced morbidity, decreased complications (such as arthrofibrosis or anesthesia-associated adverse events), meliorated extremity function, earlier return to activities, mitigated mechanical (prosthesis-associated) complications and enhanced patient satisfaction.

Conclusion: SSR is a reliable approach for the management of chronic PJI. Based on our comprehensive review of the literature, it may be concluded that the right selection of patients, extensive debridement, sophisticated reconstruction strategy, identification of the pathogenic organism, initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy and ensuring adequate follow-up are the key determinants of successful outcome. To achieve this will undoubtedly require an MDT approach to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

Keywords: (MeSH); Joint; Knee arthroplasty; Prosthesis-related infection; Review literature; Revision; Total; Treatment outcome.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of review process.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kim H.S., Park J.W., Moon S.Y., Lee Y.K., Ha Y.C., Koo K.H. Current and future burden of periprosthetic joint infection from National claim database. J Kor Med Sci. 2020;35(49) doi: 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e410. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ackerman I.N., Bohensky M.A., Zomer E., et al. The projected burden of primary total knee and hip replacement for osteoarthritis in Australia to the year 2030. BMC Muscoskel Disord. 2019;20(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2411-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Klug A., Gramlich Y., Rudert M., et al. The projected volume of primary and revision total knee arthroplasty will place an immense burden on future health care systems over the next 30 years. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29(10):3287–3298. doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-06154-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Li Z., Maimaiti Z., Yang F., et al. Incidence, associated factors, and outcomes of acute kidney injury following placement of antibiotic bone cement spacers in two-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection: a comprehensive study. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023;13 doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1243290. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kuiper J.W., Willink R.T., Moojen D.J.F., van den Bekerom M.P., Colen S. Treatment of acute periprosthetic infections with prosthesis retention: review of current concepts. World J Orthoped. 2014;5(5):667–676. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v5.i5.667. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources