Abstract
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty is a complication that affects approximately 2-3% of patients. The management of this issue is complicated and expensive for both the patients and the healthcare system. Multiple management options are available including antibiotic suppressive therapy, surgical management, and salvage procedures. Surgical management is considered a popular option for treating PJI, with multiple available surgical techniques, including single-stage revision arthroplasty and two-stage revision arthroplasty among others. Two-stage revision has been considered the gold standard for treating PJI. This method consists of two surgical procedures with a time interval in between, the first procedure aims to eradicate the infection along with implanting either a static or a mobile spacer, while the second intervention aims to remove the spacer and implant a new prothesis. During the interval period the patient is closely monitored through a handful of laboratory tests and clinical signs that help in assessing the optimal time of undertaking the second stage. However, in recent years, the single-stage method has gained much attention for its comparable outcomes and fewer complications. Contrary to the two-stage method, the single-stage approach consists only of one procedure in which the old infected prosthesis is removed and a new one is implanted. Many articles have compared the two methods over the years but have not agreed on a particular approach to be more potent in eliminating infection and providing better outcomes. Plenty of questions are yet to be answered regarding the two methods, including the superior type of spacer, interim period duration, and single-stage revision inclusion criteria. We herein, aim to address these issues, highlighting recent advances in managing this morbid complication and discussing controversial topics in the staged procedures.