Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a complex procedure which carries both a greater risk for patients and greater cost for the treating hospital than does a primary TKA. As well as the increased cost of peri-operative investigations, blood transfusions, surgical instrumentation, implants and operating time, there is a well-documented increased length of stay which accounts for most of the actual costs associated with surgery.

We compared revision surgery for infection with revision for other causes (pain, instability, aseptic loosening and fracture). Complete clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 168 consecutive revision TKAs performed at a tertiary referral centre between 2005 and 2012.

Revision surgery for infection was associated with a mean length of stay more than double that of aseptic cases (21.5 vs 9.5 days, p < 0.0001). The mean cost of a revision for infection was more than three times that of an aseptic revision (£30 011 (sd 4514) vs £9655 (sd 599.7), p < 0.0001).

Current NHS tariffs do not fully reimburse the increased costs of providing a revision knee surgery service. Moreover, especially as greater costs are incurred for infected cases. These losses may adversely affect the provision of revision surgery in the NHS.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:197–201.

In this paper we make the case for the use of single-stage revision for infected knee arthroplasty.

This review summarises the opinions and conclusions reached from a symposium on infected total knee replacement (TKR) held at the British Association of Surgery of the Knee (BASK) annual meeting in 2011. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales reported 5082 revision TKRs in 2010, of which 1157 (23%) were caused by infection. The diagnosis of infection beyond the acute post-operative stage relies on the identification of the causative organism by aspiration and analysis of material obtained at arthroscopy. Ideal treatment then involves a two-stage surgical procedure with extensive debridement and washout, followed by antibiotics. An articulating or non-articulating drug-eluting cement spacer is used prior to implantation of the revision prosthesis, guided by the serum level of inflammatory markers. The use of a single-stage revision is gaining popularity and we would advocate its use in certain patients where the causative organism is known, no sinuses are present, the patient is not immunocompromised, and there is no radiological evidence of component loosening or osteitis.

It is our opinion that single-stage revision produces high-quality reproducible results and will soon achieve the same widespread acceptance as it does in infected hip arthroplasty.