A systematic review of the evidence for single stage and two stage revision of infected knee replacement

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic infection about the knee is a devastating complication that may affect between 1% and 5% of knee replacement. With over 79 000 knee replacements being implanted each year in the UK, periprosthetic infection (PJI) is set to become an important burden of disease and cost to the healthcare economy. One of the important controversies in treatment of PJI is whether a single stage revision operation is superior to a two-stage procedure. This study sought to systematically evaluate the published evidence to determine which technique had lowest reinfection rates. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases with the aim to identify existing studies that present the outcomes of each surgical technique. Reinfection rate was the primary outcome measure. Studies of specific subsets of patients such as resistant organisms were excluded. RESULTS: 63 studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The majority of which (58) were reports of two-stage revision. Reinfection rated varied between 0% and 41% in two-stage studies, and 0% and 11% in single stage studies. No clinical trials were identified and the majority of studies were observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for both one-stage and two-stage revision is largely of low quality. The evidence basis for two-stage revision is significantly larger, and further work into direct comparison between the two techniques should be undertaken as a priority

Outcome of prosthesis exchange for infected knee arthroplasty: the effect of treatment approach: A systematic review of the literature

Background and purpose Two-stage revision remains the gold standard in the treatment of infected knee arthroplasty. Lately, good long-term results of direct exchange arthroplasty have been reported. The purpose of this literature review is to compare the clinical outcome achieved with one-stage revision and two-stage revision with different types of spacers

The controversy of patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: Ibisne in medio tutissimus?

Early arthroplasty designs were associated with a high level of anterior knee pain as they failed to cater for the patello-femoral joint. Patellar resurfacing was heralded as the saviour safeguarding patient satisfaction and success but opinion on its necessity has since deeply divided the scientific community and has become synonymous to topics of religion or politics. Opponents of resurfacing contend that the native patella provides better patellar tracking, improved clinical function, and avoids implant-related complications, whilst proponents argue that patients have less pain, are overall more satisfied, and avert the need for secondary resurfacing. The question remains whether complications associated with patellar resurfacing including those arising from future component revision outweigh the somewhat increased incidence of anterior knee pain recorded in unresurfaced patients. The current scientific literature, which is often affected by methodological limitations and observer bias, remains confusing as it provides evidence in support of both sides of the argument, whilst blinded satisfaction studies comparing resurfaced and non-resurfaced knees generally reveal equivalent results. Even national arthroplasty register data show wide variations in the proportion of patellar resurfacing between countries that cannot be explained by cultural differences alone. Advocates who always resurface or never resurface indiscriminately expose the patella to a random choice. Selective resurfacing offers a compromise by providing a decision algorithm based on a propensity for improved clinical success, whilst avoiding potential complications associated with unnecessary resurfacing. Evidence regarding the validity of selection criteria, however, is missing, and the decision when to resurface is often based on intuitive reasoning. Our lack of understanding why, irrespective of pre-operative symptoms and patellar resurfacing, some patients may suffer pain following TKA and others may not have so far stifled our efforts to make the strategy of selective resurfacing succeed. We should hence devote our efforts in defining predictive criteria and indicators that will enable us to reliably identify those individuals who might benefit from a resurfacing procedure. Level of evidence V