# A Comparison of 1.5-Stage and Two-Stage Revisions for Prosthetic Joint Infection in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis of Outcomes

## TL;DR

This study compares two surgical approaches for treating joint infections after hip and knee replacements, finding that one method reduces reinfection but increases another complication.

## Contribution

The study provides a meta-analysis comparing 1.5-stage and two-stage revision outcomes for prosthetic joint infections.

## Key findings

- 1.5-stage revision is associated with lower reinfection rates compared to two-stage revision.
- 1.5-stage revision has a higher risk of aseptic loosening compared to two-stage revision.
- No significant differences were found in infection eradication or other complications between the two methods.

## Abstract

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication of total hip and knee arthroplasty. Whilst two-stage revision has long been considered the gold standard treatment, the 1.5-stage revision has emerged as a viable alternative. However, the optimal surgical strategy remains a subject of debate. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the comparative outcomes of 1.5-stage versus two-stage revision for PJI.

A systematic search of electronic data sources and bibliographic reference lists was conducted. All studies reporting comparative outcomes of 1.5-stage versus two-stage revision were included, and their risk of bias was assessed. Reinfection, failure of infection eradication, aseptic loosening, overall complications, readmission, and periprosthetic fracture were the evaluated outcome parameters.

All comparative studies reporting on patients who underwent either a 1.5-stage or a two-stage revision were included in the final analysis. The 1.5-stage revision was associated with a significantly lower rate of reinfection (odds ratio (OR): 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40-0.96, p = 0.03) but a significantly higher rate of aseptic loosening (OR: 6.12; 95% CI 1.09-34.22, p = 0.04) when compared with the two-stage revision. No significant difference was found in the rates of infection eradication (OR: 1.35; 95% CI 0.80-2.27, p = 0.26), overall complications, readmission, dislocations, or periprosthetic fracture between the two groups. A subgroup analysis for knee PJI was consistent with the main analysis for reinfection.

The meta-analysis of the best available evidence indicates that a 1.5-stage revision for PJI is associated with a lower rate of reinfection but a higher risk of aseptic loosening. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to definitively establish the optimal surgical strategy for managing PJI.