Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 370–379 | Cite as

The Role of One-Stage Exchange for Prosthetic Joint Infection

  • Fiachra E. RowanEmail author
  • Matthew J. Donaldson
  • Jurek R. Pietrzak
  • Fares S. Haddad
Prosthetic Joint Infection (S Nodzo and N Frisch, section editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Prosthetic Joint Infection


Purpose of Review

In an era of increasing numbers of hip and knee replacements, strategies to manage prosthetic joint infection (PJI) that are effective at infection control with good patient-reported outcomes and cost containment for health systems are needed. Interest in single-stage exchange for PJI is rising and we assess evidence from the last 5 years related to this treatment strategy.

Recent Findings

Only five series for total knee replacement and ten series for total hip replacement have been reported in the last five years. More review articles and opinion pieces have been written. Reinfection rates in these recent studies range from 0 to 65%, but a meta-analysis and systematic review of all studies showed a reinfection rate of 7.6% (95% CI 3.4–13.1) and 8.8% (95% CI 7.2–10.6) for single-stage and two-stage revisions respectively. There is emerging evidence to support single-stage revision in the setting of significant bony deficiency and atypical PJIs such as fungal infections.


Prospective randomised studies are recruiting and are necessary to guide the direction of single-stage revision selection criteria. The onus of surgical excellence in mechanical removal of implants, necrotic tissue, and biofilms lies with the arthroplasty surgeon and must remain the cornerstone of treatment. Single-stage revision may be considered the first-line treatment for all PJIs unless the organism is unknown, the patient is systemically septic, or there is a poor tissue envelope.


Prosthetic joint infection Single-stage revision Revision hip replacement Revision knee replacement 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Culliford D, Maskell J, Judge a, Cooper C, Prieto-Alhambra D, Arden NK. Future projections of total hip and knee arthroplasty in the UK: results from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Osteoarthr Cartil Elsevier Ltd. 2015;23:594–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:2606–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kumar A, Tsai W-C, Tan T-S, Kung P-T, Chiu L-T, Ku M-C. Temporal trends in primary and revision total knee and hip replacement in Taiwan. J Chinese Med Assoc. 2015;78:538–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Lau E, Widmer M, Maravic M, Gómez-Barrena E, et al. International survey of primary and revision total knee replacement. Int Orthop Springer. 2011;35:1783–9.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:780–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C, Bs B. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. 2007;370.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Skou ST, Roos EM, Laursen MB, Rathleff MS, Arendt-Nielsen L, Simonsen O, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of total knee replacement. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1597–606.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gundtoft PH, Overgaard S, Schønheyder HC, Møller JK, Kjærsgaard-Andersen P, Pedersen AB. The “true” incidence of surgically treated deep prosthetic joint infection after 32,896 primary total hip arthroplasties: a prospective cohort study. Acta Orthop Taylor & Francis. 2015;86:326–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pulido L, Ghanem E, Joshi A, Purtill JJ, Parvizi J. Periprosthetic joint infection: the incidence, timing, and predisposing factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:1710–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haddad FS. Even the winners are losers. Bone Joint J Br Editorial Soc Bone Joint Surg; 2017;99–B:561–562.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marang-van de Mheen PJ, Bragan Turner E, Liew S, Mutalima N, Tran T, Rasmussen S, et al. Variation in prosthetic joint infection and treatment strategies during 4.5 years of follow-up after primary joint arthroplasty using administrative data of 41397 patients across Australian, European and United States hospitals. BMC Musculoskelet Disord BioMed Central. 2017;18:207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Werner BC, Higgins MD, Pehlivan HC, Carothers JT, Browne JA. Super obesity is an independent risk factor for complications after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2017;32:402–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grant JA, Viens N, Bolognesi MP, Olson SA, Cook CE. Two-year outcomes in primary THA in obese male veterans administration medical center patients. Rheumatol Int. 2008;28:1105–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wagner ER, Kamath AF, Fruth KM, Harmsen WS, Berry DJ. Effect of body mass index on complications and reoperations after Total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg. 2016;98:169–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    OECD Obesity update 2017. 2017.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kallala RF, Vanhegan IS, Ibrahim MS, Sarmah S, Haddad FS. Financial analysis of revision knee surgery based on NHS tariffs and hospital costs: does it pay to provide a revision service? Bone Joint J. 2015;97–B:197–201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kamath AF, Ong KL, Lau E, Chan V, Vail TP, Rubash HE, et al. Quantifying the burden of revision total joint arthroplasty for periprosthetic infection. J Arthroplast. 2015;30:1492–7.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klouche S, Sariali E, Mamoudy P. Analyse du coût des reprises des prothèses totales de hanche infectées. Rev Chir Orthopédique Traumatol. 2010;96:167–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Osmon DR, Berbari EF, Berendt AR, Lew D, Zimmerli W, Steckelberg JM, et al. Executive summary: diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56:1–10.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carlsson AS, Josefsson G, Lindberg L. Revision with gentamicin-impregnated cement for deep infections in total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60:1059–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buchholz HW, Elson RA, Engelbrecht E, Lodenkamper H, Rottger J, Siegel A. Management of deep infection of total hip replacement. J Bone Jt Surgery, Br. 1981;63-B:342–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jones LC, Hungerford DS. Cement disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987:192–206.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    •• Kunutsor SK, Whitehouse MR, Lenguerrand E, Blom AW, Beswick AD, INFORM Team I. Re-infection outcomes following one- and two-stage surgical revision of infected knee prosthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One Public Library of Science. 2016;11:e0151537. Reinfection rates from ten one-stage studies (423 participants) and 108 two-stage studies (5129 participants) were meta-analysed using random-effect models after arcsine transformation. The rate (95% confidence intervals) of reinfection was 7.6% (3.4–13.1) in one-stage studies. The corresponding reinfection rate for two-stage revision was 8.8% (7.2–10.6). Post-operative clinical outcomes of knee scores and range of motion were similar for both revision strategies. Available evidence from aggregate published data suggests that the one-stage revision strategy may be as effective as the two-stage revision strategy in treating infected knee prostheses in generally unselected patients CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Parvizi J, Gehrke T. Definition of periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplast. 2014;29:1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McPherson EJ, Woodson C, Holtom P, Roidis N, Shufelt C, Patzakis M. Periprosthetic total hip infection: outcomes using a staging system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;403:8–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    George DA, Eng M, Haddad FS, Orth M, Orth F. One-stage exchange arthroplasty: a surgical technique update. J Arthroplasty Elsevier Ltd. 2017;32:S59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kendoff D, Gehrke T. One stage exchange arthroplasty: the devil is in the detail. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2012:1–6.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Winkler H, Stoiber A, Kaudela K, Winter F, Menschik F. One stage uncemented revision of infected total hip replacement using cancellous allograft bone impregnated with antibiotics. J Bone Jt Surg - Br. 2008;90-B:1580–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    • Ilchmann T, Zimmerli W, Ochsner PE, Kessler B, Zwicky L, Graber P, Clauss M One-stage revision of infected hip arthroplasty: outcome of 39 consecutive hips. Int. Orthop. Int Orthop; 2016. 40, 913–918 Thirty-eight patients (39 hips) were treated with a one-stage procedure and followed for at least 2 years. In 25 hips, an uncemented revision stem was implanted, and 37 hips received an acetabular reinforcement ring. The mean follow-up was 6.6 (2.0–15.1) years. No patient had persistent, recurrent, or new infection. There were four stem revisions for aseptic loosening. Excellent cure rate and function seen in this study suggest that one-stage exchange is a safe procedure, even without local antibiotic treatment. Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hansen E, Tetreault M, Zmistowski B, Della Valle CJ, Parvizi J, Haddad FS, et al. Outcome of one-stage cementless exchange for acute postoperative periprosthetic hip infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:3214–22.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Negus JJ, Gifford PB, Haddad FS, Tr F. Single-stage revision arthroplasty for infection d an underutilized treatment strategy. J. Arthroplasty. Elsevier Ltd. 2017;32:2051–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McPherson EJ, Dipane MV, Sherif SM. Dissolvable antibiotic beads in treatment of periprosthetic joint infection and revision arthroplasty—the use of synthetic pure calcium sulfate (Stimulan®) impregnated with vancomycin & tobramycin. Reconstr Rev. 2013;3:32–43.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wolf CF, Gu NY, Doctor JN, Manner PA, Leopold SS. Comparison of one and two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasty complicated by infection. J Bone Jt Surgery-American. 2011;93:631–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Parkinson RW, Kay PR, Rawal A. A case for one-stage revision in infected total knee arthroplasty?. Knee Elsevier BV; 2011;18:1–4.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Haddad FS, Sukeik M, Alazzawi S. Is single-stage revision according to a strict protocol effective in treatment of chronic knee arthroplasty infections? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:8–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Choi H, Kwon Y, Freiberg AA, Malchau H. Comparison of one-stage revision with antibiotic cement versus two-stage revision results for infected total hip arthroplasty. J. Arthroplasty. Elsevier Inc. 2013;28:66–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Baker P, Petheram TG, Kurtz S, Konttinen YT, Gregg P, Deehan D. Patient reported outcome measures after revision of the infected TKR: comparison of single versus two-stage revision. Knee Surgery, Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21:2713–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Berend KR, Lombardi AV, Morris MJ, Bergeson AG, Adams JB, Sneller MA. Two-stage treatment of hip periprosthetic joint infection is associated with a high rate of infection control but high mortality. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:510–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Klouche S, Leonard P, Zeller V, Lhotellier L, Graff W, Leclerc P, et al. Infected total hip arthroplasty revision: one- or two-stage procedure? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res Elsevier Masson SAS. 2012;98:144–50.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wongworawat MD. Clinical faceoff: one- versus two-stage exchange arthroplasty for prosthetic joint. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:1750–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gehrke T, Zahar A, Kendoff D. One-stage exchange: it all began here. Bone Joint J. 2013;95(B):77–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lichstein P, Gehrke T, Lombardi A, Romano C, Stockley I, Babis G, et al. One-stage versus two-stage exchange. J Orthop Res. 2014;32Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hughes PW, Salvati EA, Wilson PDJ, Blumenfeld EL. Treatment of subacute sepsis of the hip by antibiotics and joint replacement. Criteria for diagnosis with evaluation of twenty-six cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979:143–57.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Miley GB, Scheller AD, Turner RH. Medical and surgical treatment of the septic hip with one-stage revision arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;(170):76.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Weber FA, Lautenbach EE. Revision of infected total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986:108–15.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wroblewski BM. One-stage revision of infected cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986:103–7.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sanzén L, Carlsson AS, Josefsson G, Lindberg LT. Revision operations on infected total hip arthroplasties. Two- to nine-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988. p. 165–72.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hope PG, Kristinsson KG, Norman P, Elson RA. Deep infection of cemented total hip arthroplasties caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989;71:851–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Raut VV, Siney PD, Wroblewski BM. One-stage revision of infected total hip replacements with discharging sinuses. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76:721–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mulcahy DM, O’Byrne JM, Fenelon GE. One stage surgical management of deep infection of total hip arthroplasty. Ir J Med Sci. 1996;165:17–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ure KJ, Amstutz HC, Nasser S, Schmalzried TP. Direct-exchange arthroplasty for the treatment of infection after total hip replacement. An average ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:961–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Callaghan JJ, Katz RP, Johnston RC. One-stage revision surgery of the infected hip. A minimum 10-year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;369:139–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rudelli S, Uip D, Honda E, Lima ALLM. One-stage revision of infected total hip arthroplasty with bone graft. J Arthroplasty Elsevier BV. 2008;23:1165–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Matsen Ko LJ, Pollag KE, Yoo JY, Sharkey PF. Serum metal ion levels following total hip arthroplasty with modular dual mobility components. J Arthroplast. 2016;31:186–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Oussedik SIS, Dodd MB, Haddad FS. Outcomes of revision total hip replacement for infection after grading according to a standard protocol. J Bone Jt Surg - Br. 2010;92-B:1222–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    De Man FHR, Sendi P, Zimmerli W, Maurer TB, Ochsner PE, Ilchmann T. Infectiological, functional, and radiographic outcome after revision for prosthetic hip infection according to a strict algorithm. Acta Orthop. 2011;82:27–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bori G, Muñoz-mahamud E, Cuñé J, Gallart X, Fuster D, Soriano A. One-stage revision arthroplasty using cementless stem for infected hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty Elsevier Inc. 2014;29:1076–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Jenny J, Lengert R, Diesinger Y. Routine one-stage exchange for chronic infection after total hip replacement. 2014;2477–81.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kamath AF, Rueger JM, Gebauer M, Gehrke T. Single-stage revision for fungal peri-prosthetic joint infection 2011;492–6.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wolf M, Clar H, Friesenbichler J, Schwantzer G, Bernhardt G, Gruber G, et al. Prosthetic joint infection following total hip replacement: results of one-stage versus two-stage exchange. Int Orthop. 2014;38:1363–8.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zeller V, Lhotellier L, Marmor S, Leclerc P, Krain A, Graff W, et al. One-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic hip infection: results of a large prospective cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96:e1–1-9.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ebied AM, Elseedy AI, Gamal O. Single-stage revision for periprosthetic hip infection using antibiotic loaded impaction graft. Hip Int. 2016;26:573–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Freeman M, Sudlow R, Casewell M, Radcliff S. The management of infected total knee replacements. J Bone Jt Surg. 1985;67:764–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Göksan SB, Freeman MAR. One-stage reimplantation total for infected total knee arthroplasty. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 1992;74:78–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Scott I. Exchange replacements. jbjs Br. 1993;75–B:28–31.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Silva M, Tharani R, Schmalzried TP. Results of direct exchange or debridement of the infected total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;404:125–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Buechel FF, Femino FP, D’Alessio J. Primary exchange revision arthroplasty for infected total knee replacement: a long-term study. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead. NJ). 2004;33:190–8. discussion 198Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Whiteside LA, Peppers M, Nayfeh TA, Roy ME. Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in TKA treated with revision and direct intraarticular antibiotic infusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:26–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Singer J, Merz A, Frommelt L, Fink B. High rate of infection control with one-stage revision of septic knee prostheses excluding MRSA and MRSE. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:1461–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Tibrewal S, Malagelada F, Jeyaseelan L, Posch F, Scott G. Single-stage revision for the infected total knee replacement: results from a single centre. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B:759–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Labruyère C, Zeller V, Lhotellier L, Desplaces N, Léonard P, Mamoudy P, et al. Chronic infection of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: one-stage conversion to total knee arthroplasty. Surg Res. 2015;101:553–7.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    •• George DA, Logoluso N, Castellini G, Gianola S, Scarponi S, Haddad FS, et al. Does cemented or cementless single-stage exchange arthroplasty of chronic periprosthetic hip infections provide similar infection rates to a two-stage? A systematic review. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:553. There was no statistically significant difference between a single-stage and a two-stage exchanges in terms of recurrence of infection in controlled studies (pooled odds ratio of 1.37 [95% CI = 0.68–2.74, I 2= 45.5%]). Similarly, the recurrence infection rate in cementless versus cemented single-stage hip exchanges failed to demonstrate a significant difference, due to the substantial heterogeneity among the studies. No superiority was demonstrated between a single- and two-stage exchanges at a minimum of 12 months of follow-up in controlled studies. Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Pattyn C, De Geest T, Ackerman P, Audenaert E. Preformed gentamicin spacers in two-stage revision hip arthroplasty: functional results and complications. Int. Orthop. Springer. 2011;35:1471–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Faschingbauer M, Reichel H, Bieger R, Kappe T. Mechanical complications with one hundred and thirty eight (antibiotic-laden) cement spacers in the treatment of periprosthetic infection after total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2015;39:989–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    • Fink B, Schlumberger M, Oremek D. Single-stage acetabular revision during two-stage THA revision for infection is effective in selected patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017;475:2063–2070. Between June 2009 and June 2014, all patients underwent surgical treatment for an infected THA using a single-stage acetabular revision as part of a two-stage THA exchange if the acetabular defect classification was Paprosky types 2B, 2C, 3A, and 3B, or pelvic discontinuity, and a two-stage procedure was preferred for the femur. Thirty-four of 35 patients (97.2%; 95% CI, 85.4–99.5%) appeared free of infection at mean follow-up of 42 months. This technique is a promising treatment option for periprosthetic infections of the hip in which substantial acetabular defects exclude implantation of a normal spacer.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Anagnostakos K, Wilmes P, Schmitt E, Kelm J. Elution of gentamicin and vancomycin from polymethylmethacrylate beads and hip spacers in vivo. Acta Orthop Taylor Francis. 2009;80:193–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Bertazzoni Minelli E, Benini A, Magnan B, Bartolozzi P. Release of gentamicin and vancomycin from temporary human hip spacers in two-stage revision of infected arthroplasty. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004;53:329–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Stallmann HP, Faber C, Wuisman PIJM. Response to: release of gentamicin and vancomycin from temporary human hip spacers in two-stage revision of infected arthroplasty. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004;54:570–0.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Heesterbeek PJC, Wymenga AB, van Hellemondt GG. No difference in implant micromotion between hybrid fixation and fully cemented revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg. 2016;98:1359–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ji B, Xu B, Guo W, Rehei A, Mu W, Yang D, et al. Retention of the well-fixed implant in the single-stage exchange for chronic infected total hip arthroplasty: an average of five years of follow-up. Int Orthop. 2017;41:901–9.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Anagnostakos K, Kelm J, Schmitt E, Jung J. Fungal periprosthetic hip and knee joint infections clinical experience with a 2-stage treatment protocol. J Arthroplast. 2012;27:293–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Ji B, Zhang X, Xu B, Guo W, Mu W. Single-stage revision for chronic fungal periprosthetic joint infection: an average of 5 years of follow-up. J Arthroplasty Elsevier Ltd. 2017;32:2523–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Moore AJ, Blom AW, Whitehouse MR, Gooberman-Hill R. Managing uncertainty—a qualitative study of surgeons’ decision-making for one-stage and two-stage revision surgery for prosthetic hip joint infection. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18:154.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Masters JPM, Smith NA, Foguet P, Reed M, Parsons H, Sprowson AP. A systematic review of the evidence for single stage and two stage revision of infected knee replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:222.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Strange S, Whitehouse MR, Beswick AD, Board T, Burston A, Burston B. One-stage or two-stage revision surgery for prosthetic hip joint infection—the INFORM trial: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials Trials. 2016;17:90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Gehrke T, Kendoff D. Peri-prosthetic hip infections: in favour of one-stage. Hip Int 22 Suppl. 8:S40–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fiachra E. Rowan
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Matthew J. Donaldson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jurek R. Pietrzak
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fares S. Haddad
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity College London HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.The Princess Grace HospitalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations