We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary arthroplasty revised with single-stage or two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HRs) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. In total, 535 primary hip arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,525 person-years) and 1,605 with two-stage procedure (5,885 person-years). All-cause re-revision was higher following single-stage revision, especially in the first three months (HR at 3 months = 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.43), p = 0.009). The risks were comparable thereafter. Re-revision for PJI was higher in the first three postoperative months for single-stage revision and waned with time (HR at 3 months = 1.81 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.68), p = 0.003; HR at 6 months = 1.25 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.21), p = 0.441; HR at 12 months = 0.94 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.63), p = 0.819). Patients initially managed with a single-stage revision received fewer revision operations (mean 1.3 (SD 0.7) vs 2.2 (SD 0.6), p < 0.001). Mortality rates were comparable between these two procedures (29/10,000 person-years vs 33/10,000). The risk of unplanned re-revision was lower following two-stage revision, but only in the early postoperative period. The lower overall number of revision procedures associated with a single-stage revision strategy and the equivalent mortality rates to two-stage revision are reassuring. With appropriate counselling, single-stage revision is a viable option for the treatment of hip PJI.

Aims

We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty.

Aims

We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage revision surgery and single-stage revision surgery among patients with infected primary knee arthroplasty.

Patients with knee prosthetic joint infection (PJI) frequently receive one- or two-stage revision. To explore the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing methods, we analysed a UK registry, interviewed patients and surgeons, systematically reviewed literature, held a consensus meeting, and assessed progress of an RCT in hip PJI. In 2014, in England and Wales, knee PJI was treated with one- or two-stage procedures in 19% and 71% of patients respectively. Between 2007 and 2014, use of one-stage procedures doubled and, in major centres, up to 42% of treatments were one-stage. We conducted in-depth interviews with 16 patients with knee PJI and 11 surgeons performing one- or two-stage revision. Patients considered randomisation acceptable with appropriate counselling and, depending on infecting organisms and health status, surgeons would randomise treatments. In meta-analysis, two-year re-infection rates in 10 one-stage series (423 patients) and 108 two-stage series (5,129 patients) were 7.6% (95%CI 3.4,13.1) and 8.8% (7.2,10.6) respectively. In a series of patients with knee PJI, surgeons from 2 major centres considered 6/15 patients eligible for either treatment, with 4 more potentially eligible after treatment of soft tissue infection. In an ongoing RCT of surgical treatment of hip PJI, 116 patients have been randomised at 14 centres in 3 years. Randomising patients with PJI is feasible but, as knee PJI is uncommon, a multicentre RCT would be required. Based on WOMAC score outcome and appropriate assumptions on eligibility and acceptability, 170 patients would need to be randomised over 4 years at 14 major centres.