Michelle M J Jacobs, Petra J C Heesterbeek, Karin Veerman, Jon H M Goosen
{"title":"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。","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":2.8000,"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":"{\"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\":2.8000,\"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}","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}
One- versus two-stage septic hip and knee revision surgery: a comparative cohort outcome study with short- to mid-term follow-up.
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: ; hip: ) 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 ( for both cohorts). More adverse events, of which two were spacer-related, were observed in two-stage hip patients ( ) compared to in one-stage patients ( ) ( ). 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.