Single-stage Revision Arthroplasty Research Articles

Local Antibiotic Infusion in Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Local antibiotic infusion has emerged as a promising adjunctive therapy, delivering high concentrations of antibiotics directly to the infection site. This approach aims to enhance eradication of pathogens while minimizing systemic side effects associated with prolonged antibiotic use. This narrative review encompassed 10 articles focused on all three procedures of surgical intervention for periprosthetic joint injection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA): debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR), single-stage revision arthroplasty, and two-stage revision arthroplasty. Recent studies report success rates ranging from 90 to 100% in patients undergoing DAIR, 82 to 100% in single-stage revision arthroplasty, and 80% in two-stage revision arthroplasty. The adjunctive use of local antibiotic infusion alongside surgical treatment for PJI following THA provides high success rates and is associated with low systemic complications, such as renal toxicity. Further research, particularly high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs), is warranted to validate and refine treatment protocols, ensuring consistent efficacy and safety.

Outcomes of culture-negative or -positive periprosthetic joint infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study overviewed the current database of studies on periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) to compare outcomes and antibiotic side effects in culture-negative or culture-positive PJIs and assess treatment options for culture-negative PJIs. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken using studies published before July 2022 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. All studies comparing treatment of culture-negative or -positive PJIs were included. Afterward, the infection control rate, periprosthetic or spacer fracture, hip joint or spacer dislocation, and antibiotic side effects in different treatment methods of PJI were analyzed. Eleven studies involving 1,747 patients were included. Most studies clearly defined the infection control criteria: no pain or swelling, no wound drainage, normal serology, and normal radiographic findings. Patients were followed until treatment failure, death, or until the last clinical visit without evidence of treatment failure. The two types of PJIs did not differ significantly in infection control rates (culture-negative PJI 79.2% vs. culture-positive PJI 76.6%; odds ratio [OR]=1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.84 to 1.70), either after all types of surgical treatment or after two-stage revision arthroplasty (OR=1.12, 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.75), single-stage revision arthroplasty (OR=0.51, 95% CI: 0.19 to 1.37), or debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (OR=0.88, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.54). Similarly, we did not find differences in periprosthetic or spacer fracture and hip joint or spacer dislocation. For culture-negative PJIs, the infection control rate was 85.2% after two-stage revision arthroplasty, 90.6% after single-stage revision arthroplasty, and 69.7% after debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention. Data pooled from three studies showed higher incidence of antibiotic side effects for culture-negative PJIs. The clinical outcomes of one-stage revision and two-stage revision are comparable. Therefore, both of them can be considered in surgical treatment for culture-negative PJIs. In addition, limited data showed a higher incidence of antibiotic side effects in culture-negative PJIs.

Survivorship and Etiologies of Failure in Single-stage Revision Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Meta-analysis

Single-stage revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) may yield comparable infection-free survivorship with two-stage revision arthroplasty. It is unclear if the most common mode of failure of single-stage revision arthroplasty is infection or aseptic loosening. In this meta-analysis, we sought to (1) determine survivorship and (2) compare rates of different etiologies of failure of single-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses guidelines search was done using search terms for "single stage revision," "exchange arthroplasty," "periprosthetic infection," "PJI," and "single stage." Patient demographics such as age, body mass index, and mean follow-up time were recorded. Overall survivorship and rates of revision surgery were aggregated using a random-effects model. Comparison of septic and aseptic loosening rates was done by risk difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) calculation. Twenty-four studies were identified with 2,062 and 147 single-stage revision THA and TKA procedures performed between 1984 and 2019, respectively. The weighted mean follow-up and age were 69.8 months and 66.3 years, respectively, with 55% men overall. The all-cause revision surgery rate was 11.1% and 11.8% for THA and TKA, respectively. The revision surgery rate secondary to infection and aseptic loosening and associated 95% CI for the risk difference for THA and TKA was 5.5% and 3.3% (-1.7% to 5.0%), and 3% and 8.8% (-11.4% to 2.3%), respectively. Revision surgeries due to instability and fracture combined and mortality rate were both less than 3%. Single-stage revision THA and TKA for PJI demonstrated overall high rates of survivorship, low mortality, and revision surgeries secondary to infection and aseptic loosening to be equivalent. Aseptic loosening after single-stage revision TKA might be higher than in primary TKA. As implant survivorship from infection improves in PJI, surgeons should be aware of aseptic loosening as an equally common mode of failure.

Periprosthetic joint infection following hip hemiarthroplasty : factors associated with infection and treatment outcome.

The aims of this study were to determine the incidence and factors for developing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hemiarthroplasty (HA) for hip fracture, and to evaluate treatment outcome and identify factors associated with treatment outcome. A retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients treated for HA PJI at a tertiary referral centre with a mean 4.5 years' follow-up (1.6 weeks to 12.9 years). Surgeries performed included debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) and single-stage revision. The effect of different factors on developing infection and treatment outcome was determined. A total of 1,984 HAs were performed during the study period, and 44 sustained a PJI (2.2%). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that a higher CCI score (odds ratio (OR) 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.117 to 2.187); p = 0.003), peripheral vascular disease (OR 11.34 (95% CI 1.897 to 67.810); p = 0.008), cerebrovascular disease (OR 65.32 (95% CI 22.783 to 187.278); p < 0.001), diabetes (OR 4.82 (95% CI 1.903 to 12.218); p < 0.001), moderate-to-severe renal disease (OR 5.84 (95% CI 1.116 to 30.589); p = 0.037), cancer without metastasis (OR 6.42 (95% CI 1.643 to 25.006); p = 0.007), and metastatic solid tumour (OR 15.64 (95% CI 1.499 to 163.087); p = 0.022) were associated with increasing PJI risk. Upon final follow-up, 17 patients (38.6%) failed initial treatment and required further surgery for HA PJI. One-year mortality was 22.7%. Factors associated with treatment outcome included lower preoperative Hgb level (97.9 g/l (SD 11.4) vs 107.0 g/l (SD 16.1); p = 0.009), elevated CRP level (99.1 mg/l (SD 63.4) vs 56.6 mg/l (SD 47.1); p = 0.030), and type of surgery. There was lower chance of success with DAIR (42.3%) compared to revision HA (66.7%) or revision with conversion to total hip arthroplasty (100%). Early-onset PJI (≤ six weeks) was associated with a higher likelihood of treatment failure (OR 3.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 10.6); p = 0.007) along with patients treated by a non-arthroplasty surgeon (OR 2.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 5.3); p = 0.014). HA PJI initially treated with DAIR is associated with poor chances of success and its value is limited. We strongly recommend consideration of a single-stage revision arthroplasty with cemented components.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open2022;3(12):924-932.

Aseptic Loosening in Single-Stage Revision Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

We set out to more definitively understand, using a meta-analysis, where we tried to assess the reoperation rates secondary to infection and aseptic loosening in single-stage revision total hips and total knees. Secondarily, we looked at the overall reoperation rate, i.e., survivorship, other etiologies of reoperations and the overall mortality rate.

The Fate of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Megaprosthesis Reconstruction.

Background:A megaprosthesis may be used for reconstruction in patients with massive bone loss or a periprosthetic fracture. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) may occur after a megaprosthesis reconstruction and may pose a major challenge. The outcomes of managing PJI in patients with a megaprosthesis is relatively unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical course and outcomes of PJI in patients with a megaprosthesis in place.Methods:From a total of 219 patients who underwent megaprosthesis replacement for non-oncologic conditions, 38 (17.4%) developed subsequent PJI. A retrospective review of the medical record was performed to ascertain the course of the PJI and treatment outcomes. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to evaluate the survival function, and the log-rank test was used to assess differences in outcome measures.Results:The surgical management of 33 patients with PJI included debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) (82%), consisting of DAIR with modular component exchange (19 patients) and DAIR without component exchange (8 patients); 2-stage exchange arthroplasty (9%); resection arthroplasty (6%); and a single-stage revision arthroplasty (3%). The Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis demonstrated that the overall survival rate was 65.1% at 2 years. The mortality rate was 15%, with many patients undergoing salvage procedures including amputation (18%), arthrodesis (6%), and resection arthroplasty (6%).Conclusions:The rate of PJI after megaprosthesis reconstruction, 17% in this study, appears to be very high. The management of PJI in these patients is challenging, with 1 of 3 patients undergoing failed treatment. Despite the limited options available, DAIR seems to be an appropriate treatment strategy for some of these patients. Further data on a larger cohort are needed to assess the success of various surgical procedures and predictors of failure in this challenging patient population.Level of Evidence:Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

SINGLE STAGE KNEE ARTHROPLASTY REVISION SURGERY, OUR EXPERIENCE WITH ELEVEN CASES AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Knee replacement is a widely performed and very successful procedure for the management of knee arthritis. Nevertheless, it is postulated that a total of 2-5% of primary and revision total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) is infected every year [1,2]. Despite the low incidence, the absolute numbers of prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are growing, owing to an increased number of replacement surgeries, and are associated with significant morbidity and socioeconomic burden [3,4]. Although several definitions of PJI exist, Musculoskeletal Infection’s Society (MSIS) definition is based on strict criteria and is one of the most used [5]. Patients with certain risk factors have an increased risk to develop PJI [6,7]. Risk factors include presence of systemic or local active infection in an arthritic knee; previous operative procedures in the same knee, diabetes mellitus, malnutrition, smoking, alcohol consumption, co-morbidities, and immunosuppression; end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis, liver disease, intravenous drug abuse, and low safety operative room environment. PJIs are classified according to the depth of infection, to superficial and deep infections. Superficial infections are limited to the incision and superficial tissues, while deep infections, that involve deep layers, may occur up to one year postoperatively, and influence surgical management strategy. Timing of infection is also an important factor in guiding treatment. PJIs are classified to acute postoperative, within a month of the index procedure, acute haematogenous, presenting with acute symptoms in a previously well – functioning joint, and late chronic, where infection develops later than one month postoperatively [8]. Management of PJI’s is mainly surgical, reserving conservative treatment for patients unable to undergo surgery [9]. Surgical options include debridement and retention of the prosthetic implants (DAIR), two – stage exchange revision, single – stage exchange revision, permanent resection arthroplasty, and finally amputation as the last measure [10]. DAIR is a viable option in early stages of acute infections, but established chronic infections necessitate more radical methods. Two – stage revision that was originally described by Install [11], secondly modified through the development of static spacers [12], and then articulating spacers [13], is considered the gold standard of TKA infection management [14]. A large volume of literature reports successful eradication of PJIs in more than 90% of patients using this approach [15,16,17]. Nevertheless, this procedure is costly, time-consuming, develops stiffness, arthrofibrosis, impairs mobility and increases inpatient stay. Single-stage revision arthroplasty for infection was first described in the 1980s [18, 19], has gained popularity for use in selected patients [20]. Infection control using this approach is achieved in 67% to 95% of patients [21, 22, 23, 24]. Furthermore, it is associated with less patient morbidity, improving functional outcome and reducing cost [25, 20]. This paper seeks to systematically review the results of using single – stage revision arthroplasty for chronic infection of TKAs. Furthermore, we report our experience with eleven cases of chronic knee arthroplasty infection, which were treated with the aforementioned technique.

Systematic review of single stage revision for prosthetic joint infection.

While advanced technology, increased medical knowledge and improved surgical technique has improved patient outcomes in total joint arthroplasty, prosthetic joint infection still remains one of the leading causes of increased healthcare costs, medical resources and societal burdens in orthopaedic care. Two stage arthroplasty revision remains the gold standard for treatment of prosthetic joint infection. Proponents of single stage revision arthroplasty for infection argue that it results in lower healthcare costs while improving patient reported functional outcomes and with equivalent success rates. Here we review the history of single stage revision arthroplasty, discuss the key principles, highlight the indications and contraindications, and review the reported outcomes with a focus on future developments of single stage revision arthroplasty for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections.

Is Preoperative Identification of the Infecting Organism Essential Before Single-Stage Revision Hip Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Infection?

BackgroundIt is commonly stated that identification of the infecting organism is a prerequisite to single-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip for deep infection. We have performed single-stage revision in a series of patients where the organism was not identified preoperatively. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the rate of infection eradication following single-stage revision was affected by preoperative knowledge of the infecting organism. MethodsWe identified all patients who had undergone a single-stage revision for a deep infection at our hospital between 2006 and 2015. One hundred five patients were assigned into 2 groups based upon whether the infecting organism had been identified preoperatively (group A = 28) or not (group B = 77). ResultsThe reinfection rates were 3.6% in group A and 9.1% for group B (P = .679). Re-revision rates were 7.1% and 9.1%, respectively (P = 1.00). Overall, the implant survival rate at 6 years was 87.9% (95% confidence interval, 97.4-78.4). In group B, preoperative aspiration was performed in 36.4% (28/77) of cases. Staphylococci species were the predominant causative organisms, with gram-negative involvement in 19.0% (20/105) of cases. ConclusionThe rate of infection eradication and overall survivorship with single-stage revision was similar in our series to that reported in the literature. While desirable, we did not find identification of the infecting organism before surgery influenced the outcome. Given the functional and economic benefits of single-stage revision, we suggest that failure to identify an organism is not an absolute contraindication to this approach.

Revision total elbow arthroplasty: Is it safe to perform a single-stage revision for presumed aseptic loosening based on clinical assessment, normal inflammatory markers, and a negative aspiration?

Revision total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is a challenging procedure that is becoming increasingly common. In our unit, we regard it as essential to exclude infection as the underlying cause of TEA loosening. In all patients with arthroplasty loosening, we undertake a careful history and examination, perform radiographs, monitor inflammatory markers, and undertake a joint aspiration. If any investigation suggests infection as the etiology, then a 2-stage revision is undertaken. Open biopsies are not routinely performed. The aim was to ascertain from our outcomes whether it is safe to perform a single-stage revision for presumed aseptic loosening using these criteria. A retrospective review of a consecutive series of revision TEAs was performed in our unit over a 10-year period (2008-2018). Single-stage revisions performed for presumed aseptic loosening were identified. Case notes, radiographs, bloods, aspiration results, and microbiology of tissue samples taken at revision were reviewed. A total of 123 revision elbow arthroplasty cases were performed in the study period. Sixty cases were revised for preoperatively proven infection, instability, or implant failure and were excluded from this study. In 63 cases, aseptic loosening was diagnosed based on history, clinical examination, blood markers, and aspiration. There were 21 dual-component and 42 single-component revisions. In the dual-component revision group, tissue samples taken at the time of revision were positive in only 1 case (5%). In the single-component revision group, positive culture samples were present in 3 cases (7%). χ2analysis showed no significant difference between single- and dual-component revisions (P = .76). No cases with positive culture samples from either group have required subsequent revision surgery. Given the results of this study, we conclude that is safe to perform single-stage revision arthroplasty for implant loosening based on history, examination, normal inflammatory markers, and negative aspiration results without the need for open biopsy.

Results at 10-24 years after single-stage revision arthroplasty of infected total hip arthroplasty in patients under 45 years of age.

The management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip is a challenging procedure. One-stage exchange is carried out in specialist centres with comparable infection free survival rates. However, there is a paucity of long-term results of this approach in young patients. All patients undergoing one-stage exchange due to PJI with a known causative organism ⩽45 years of age with a minimum of 10-year follow-up (mean 15 years; range 10-24 years) were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients older than 45 years of age or patients with a two-stage procedure were excluded from the study. The primary outcome measure was failure rate with special focus on reinfection at latest follow-up. Failure was defined as revision surgery for infection. Furthermore, functional outcome using the Harris Hip Score was determined initially and at latest follow-up. 26 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were available for final follow-up. The study cohort consists of 16 male and 10 female patients with a mean age of 36.8 years (range 20-45 years) and a mean BMI of 29.8 kg/m2 (range 20.7-40.6 kg/m2). Prior to the single-stage procedure, the patients underwent an average of 3.1 previous surgical interventions (range 1-9). The mean hospital stay after septic revision was 19.7 days (11-33 days). Most infections were caused by Staphylococcus epidermidis (n = 8, 30.8%), followed by Staph. aureus (n = 7, 26.9%) and Propionibacterium acnes (n = 6, 23.1%). At latest follow-up, the overall survival rate was 76.9 %, while infection control could be achieved in 96.2%. At final examination, the mean Harris Hip Score improved from 46.2 to 78.9 (range 18.0-99; SD, 22.6). Single-stage revision surgery for the management of PJI in patients ⩽45 years is a successful treatment option with high infection control, even after long-term follow-up.

Одноэтапное ревизионное эндопротезирование при лечении перипротезной инфекции тазобедренного сустава

Background One-stage revision arthroplasty has currently a limited use in treatment of a periprosthetic infection despite obvious economic benefits in comparison with two-stage revisions. This operation involves the removal of all implant components, radical surgical debridement, joint irrigation, installation of a new implant, and a long course of antibiotic therapy. Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of one-stage revision arthroplasty in the treatment of patients with periprosthetic infection of the hip joint. Material and methods Results of treatment of 14 patients with periprosthetic hip infection who underwent the procedure of a single-stage revision arthroplasty in the period from 2009 to 2018 were analyzed. The average follow-up was 2.7 years (range, 1 to 10 years). Results Twelve (86 %) out of 14 patients with periprosthetic infection of the hip joint completed one-stage treatment successfully. Two (14 %) patients developed recurrent infection and had a two-stage revision arthroplasty using an antibacterial spacer. In accordance with the Harris Hip Score scale, the functional state of the limbs at a one-years follow-up after treatment averaged 77.7 points (range, 36 to 95). Conclusions One-stage revision is quite a laborious medical procedure, for which sufficient experience of orthopedic surgeons and a specialized hospital service. This method of treatment provided suppression of infection in 86 % of our cases. Negative factors in using one-stage revision were polymicrobial infection and implant dislocation in the early postoperative period.

Indications for a single-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic prosthetic joint infection

Prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) of the hip and knee are associated with significant morbidity and socioeconomic burden. We undertook a systematic review of the current literature with the aim of proposing criteria for the selection of patients for a single-stage exchange arthroplasty in the management of a PJI. A comprehensive review of the current literature was performed using the OVID-MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases and the search terms: infection and knee arthroplasty OR knee revision OR hip arthroplasty OR hip revision, and one stage OR single stage OR direct exchange. All studies involving fewer than ten patients and follow-up of less than two years in the study group were excluded as also were systematic reviews, surgical techniques, and expert opinions. The initial search revealed 875 potential articles of which 22 fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were 16 case series and six comparative studies; five were prospective and 14 were retrospective. The studies included 962 patients who underwent single stage revision arthroplasty of an infected hip or knee joint. The rate of recurrent infection ranged from 0% to 18%, at a minimum of two years' follow-up. The rate was lower in patients who were selected on the basis of factors relating to the patient and the local soft-tissue and bony conditions. We conclude that single-stage revision is an acceptable form of surgical treatment for the management of a PJI in selected patients. The indications for this approach include the absence of severe immunocompromise and significant soft-tissue or bony compromise and concurrent acute sepsis. We suggest that a two-stage approach should be used in patients with multidrug resistant or atypical organisms such as fungus.

Single-Stage Revision Arthroplasty for Infection—An Underutilized Treatment Strategy

BackgroundThe burden of revision arthroplasty surgery for infection is rising as the rate of primary arthroplasty surgery increases. Infected arthroplasty rates are now relatively low, but the sheer increase in volume is leading to considerable patient morbidity and significant increases in costs to the health care system. Single-stage revision for infection is one of the several accepted treatment options, but the indications and results are debated. This review aims to clarify the current evidence. MethodsMEDLINE/PubMed databases were reviewed for studies that looked at single- or one-stage revision knee or hip arthroplasty for infection. ResultsThere is increasing evidence that single-stage revision for infection can control infection and with decreased morbidity, mortality, and health care costs compared with a staged approach. However, the indications are still debated. Recently, there has been a determined effort to define an infected arthroplasty in a manner that will allow for standardization of reporting in the literature. The evidence supporting single stage for knee arthroplasty is catching up with the result with hip arthroplasty. High-quality data from randomized controlled trials are now pending. ConclusionAfter the gradual evolution of using the single-stage approach, with the widespread acceptance of this definition, we can now standardize comparisons across the world and move toward a refined definition of the ideal patient population for single-stage arthroplasty revision in both the hip and the knee population.

Single-Stage Revision Is Effective for Failed Shoulder Arthroplasty with Positive Cultures for Propionibacterium.

Revision shoulder arthroplasties are often culture-positive for Propionibacterium. This study tests the hypothesis that the functional outcomes of revising Propionibacterium culture-positive failed arthroplasties with a single-stage revision and immediate antibiotic therapy are not inferior to the clinical outcomes of revising failed shoulder arthroplasties that are not culture-positive. Fifty-five shoulders without obvious clinical evidence of infection had a single-stage revision arthroplasty. The patient self-assessed functional outcomes for shoulders with ≥2 positive cultures for Propionibacterium (the culture-positive group) were compared with shoulders with no positive cultures or only 1 positive culture (the control group). The culture-positive group had 89% male patients, with a mean age (and standard deviation) of 63.5 ± 7.2 years. The mean Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores for the 27 culture-positive shoulders improved from 3.2 ± 2.8 points before the surgical procedure to 7.8 ± 3.3 points at a mean follow-up of 45.8 ± 11.7 months after the surgical procedure (p < 0.001), a mean improvement of 49% of the maximum possible improvement. The control group had 39% male patients, with a mean age of 67.1 ± 8.1 years. The mean SST scores for the 28 control shoulders improved from 2.6 ± 1.9 points preoperatively to 6.1 ± 3.4 points postoperatively at a mean follow-up of 49.6 ± 11.8 months (p < 0.001), a mean improvement of 37% of the maximum possible improvement. Subsequent procedures for persistent pain or stiffness were required in 3 patients (11%) in the culture-positive group and in 3 patients (11%) in the control group; none of the revisions were culture-positive. Fourteen patients reported side effects to antibiotics. Clinical outcomes after single-stage revision for Propionibacterium culture-positive shoulders were at least as good as the outcomes in revision procedures for control shoulders. Two-stage revision procedures may not be necessary in the management of these cases. Patients should be educated with regard to potential antibiotic side effects. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Outcomes of revision total hip replacement for infection after grading according to a standard protocol

Periprosthetic infection following total hip replacement can be a catastrophic complication for the patient. The treatments available include single-stage exchange, and two-stage exchange. We present a series of 50 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of infected total hip replacement who were assessed according to a standardised protocol. Of these, 11 underwent single-stage revision arthroplasty with no recurrence of infection at a mean of 6.8 years follow-up (5.5 to 8.8). The remaining 39 underwent two-stage revision, with two recurrences of infection successfully treated by a second two-stage procedure. At five years, significant differences were found in the mean Harris Hip Scores (single-stage 87.8; two-stage 75.5; p = 0.0003) and in a visual analogue score for satisfaction (8.6; 6.9; p = 0.001) between the single- and two-stage groups. Single-stage exchange is successful in eradicating periprosthetic infection and results in excellent functional and satisfaction scores. Identification of patients suitable for the single-stage procedure allows individualisation of care and provides as many as possible with the correct strategy in successfully tackling their periprosthetic infection.