One- versus two-stage septic hip and knee revision surgery: a comparative cohort outcome study with short- to mid-term follow-up.

IF 1.8 Q3 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Journal of Bone and Joint Infection Pub Date : 2025-06-02 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.5194/jbji-10-185-2025
Michelle M J Jacobs, Petra J C Heesterbeek, Karin Veerman, Jon H M Goosen
{"title":"One- versus two-stage septic hip and knee revision surgery: a comparative cohort outcome study with short- to mid-term follow-up.","authors":"Michelle M J Jacobs, Petra J C Heesterbeek, Karin Veerman, Jon H M Goosen","doi":"10.5194/jbji-10-185-2025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction</b>: 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. <b>Materials and methods</b>: We performed a retrospective cohort study, where equal numbers of one-stage and two-stage patients (knee: <math><mrow><mi>n</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>24</mn></mrow> </math> ; hip: <math><mrow><mi>n</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>40</mn></mrow> </math> ) 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. <b>Results</b>: 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 ( <math><mrow><mi>P</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>1.00</mn></mrow> </math> for both cohorts). More adverse events, of which two were spacer-related, were observed in two-stage hip patients ( <math><mrow><mi>n</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>7</mn></mrow> </math> ) compared to in one-stage patients ( <math><mrow><mi>n</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>2</mn></mrow> </math> ) ( <math><mrow><mi>P</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.13</mn></mrow> </math> ). Functional outcomes did not differ between one- and two-stage patients for both knee and hip cohorts. <b>Conclusions</b>: 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":15271,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection","volume":"10 3","pages":"185-192"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12163721/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Infection","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/jbji-10-185-2025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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: n = 24 ; hip: n = 40 ) 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 ( P = 1.00 for both cohorts). More adverse events, of which two were spacer-related, were observed in two-stage hip patients ( n = 7 ) compared to in one-stage patients ( n = 2 ) ( P = 0.13 ). 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.

一期与二期脓毒性髋关节和膝关节翻修手术:一项短期至中期随访的比较队列结果研究。
基于各种适应症和治疗方案的回顾性队列研究,一期修复与两期修复治疗假体周围关节感染的再感染率相似。本研究旨在比较一期和两期翻修患者的可比组之间的结果。材料和方法:我们进行了一项回顾性队列研究,其中同等数量的一期和两期患者(膝关节:n = 24;随机纳入髋关节:n = 40),采用相同的纳入和排除标准。在最近的随访中,患者特征和感染相关的结果通过图表回顾获得。功能结果(膝关节:膝关节社会评分(KSS)、活动范围(ROM)和视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛和满意度;髋关节:从修订数据库中提取术前(仅髋关节)和1年随访时的牛津髋关节评分(OHS)、髋关节残疾和骨关节炎结局评分-身体功能简表(HOOS-PS)、VAS疼痛和满意度以及欧洲生活质量5维3级版本(EQ5D-3L)。分别比较一期组和两期组以及膝关节和髋关节病例的结果。结果:一期组和两期组的基线特征具有可比性。在膝关节和髋关节队列中,1名一期患者和1名两期患者均发生了再感染(两组的P = 1.00)。与一期患者(n = 2)相比,二期髋关节患者(n = 7)观察到更多不良事件,其中2例与间隔器相关(P = 0.13)。在膝关节和髋关节队列中,一期和二期患者的功能结局没有差异。结论:本研究显示,一期和二期脓毒症膝关节和髋关节翻修患者在再感染率和功能结局方面没有差异。两期髋关节患者出现更多不良事件的趋势,部分原因是间隔期并发症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信