» Articles » PMID: 38529137

The '2-in-1' Stage: Indications, Technique & Results

Overview
Journal Ann Jt
Date 2024 Mar 26
PMID 38529137
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Prosthetic joint infections remain an ongoing challenge for orthopaedic surgeons with an interest in knee arthroplasty, which relates to their often difficult diagnoses, need for multiple surgeries, increased technical and financial requirements. Peri-prosthetic joint infection is devastating complication for the patient and with the current literature unable to either demonstrate superiority of one or two stage revision then we should continue to assess on a case by case basis. The use of a '2 in 1' single-stage approach has been recently been promoted as a form of single stage revision for infection on account of the potential for reduction in risks, costs, and complications. Where it is safe to do so, a single stage procedure can avoid several of the drawbacks which may occur with a formal two stage approach. Particularly, it can reduce the risk of post-operative stiffness and arthrofibrosis which can be associated with two stage surgery. Use of a single stage may be more cost effective, by saving the patient having to undergo a second major procedure. This article reviews the indications for its use, technique and results. The use of '2-in-1' single-stage revision can be considered as an effective option for treating infection following TKR and cases with associated bone loss.

Citing Articles

Review of recent advances in the diagnosis and management of periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty part 2: single-stage or two-stage surgical technique?.

Suliman J, Warda H, Samaan M J Orthop Surg Res. 2024; 19(1):643.

PMID: 39395987 PMC: 11470652. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-05152-6.

References
1.
Pan A, Cauda R, Concia E, Esposito S, Sganga G, Stefani S . Consensus document on controversial issues in the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Int J Infect Dis. 2010; 14 Suppl 4:S39-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2010.05.007. View

2.
Blom A, Brown J, Taylor A, Pattison G, Whitehouse S, Bannister G . Infection after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004; 86(5):688-91. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.86b5.14887. View

3.
Holland G, Brown G, Goudie S, Brenkel I, Walmsley P . Results of Using a "2-in-1" Single-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for Infection with Associated Bone Loss: Prospective 2-Year Follow-Up. J Knee Surg. 2019; 34(5):526-532. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1697963. View

4.
Byren I, Bejon P, Atkins B, Angus B, Masters S, McLardy-Smith P . One hundred and twelve infected arthroplasties treated with 'DAIR' (debridement, antibiotics and implant retention): antibiotic duration and outcome. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009; 63(6):1264-71. PMC: 2680346. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkp107. View

5.
Lentino J . Infections Associated with Prosthetic Knee and Prosthetic Hip. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2004; 6(5):388-392. DOI: 10.1007/s11908-004-0038-x. View