Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-stage versus two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection after knee arthroplasty: a call for a randomised trial

Abstract

Purpose: Knee arthroplasty is an effective treatment for severe knee degeneration; however, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of its serious complications. Single- and two-stage revision are common treatments, but few studies have compared single- and two-stage revision for PJI after knee arthroplasty. This study aimed to compare the reinfection and reoperation rates of single- and two-stage revision through meta-analysis. Methods: The review process was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched the PubMed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for trials comparing single-and two-stage revision for PJI after knee arthroplasty from the respective inception dates to April 2023. Two researchers individually screened the studies, performed the literature quality evaluation and data extraction and used Stata 17 software for data analysis. Results: The meta-analysis showed that the reinfection rate was significantly lower in the single-stage revision group than in the two-stage revision group. While the reoperation rates demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the two groups. We presented descriptive results because the discrepancies in the knee function scores and data reported in the studies meant that these data could not be combined in the meta-analysis. Conclusion: Based on the available research, single-stage revision is a reliable option for PJI after knee arthroplasty. However, when developing the best treatment strategy, it is still necessary to consider the individual circumstances and needs of the patient, as well as the risks of postoperative rehabilitation and complications.

Keywords

• periprosthetic joint infection
• knee arthroplasty
• single-stage revision
• two-stage revision