Efficacy and safety of two-stage revision for patients with culture-negative versus culture-positive periprosthetic joint infection: a single-center retrospective study.

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of two-stage revision for culture-negative PJI remain controversial. This study analyzed outcomes after two-stage revision in patients with culture-negative and culture-positive periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) during follow-up lasting at least two years.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively analysed patients who underwent hip or knee revision arthroplasty from January 2008 to October 2020 at our medical center. The primary outcome was the re-revision rate, while secondary outcomes were the rates of reinfection, readmission, and mortality. Patients with culture-negative or culture-positive PJI were compared in terms of these outcomes, as well as survival time without reinfection or revision surgery, based on Kaplan‒Meier analysis.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 87 patients who were followed up for a mean of 72.3 months (range, 24-123 months). The mean age was 58.1 years in the culture-negative group (n = 24) and 59.1 years in the culture-positive group (n = 63). The two groups (culture-negative versus culture-positive) did not differ significantly in rates of re-revision (0.0% vs. 3.2%, p > 0.05), reinfection (4.2% vs. 3.2%, p > 0.05), readmission (8.4% vs. 8.0%, p > 0.05), or mortality (8.3% vs. 7.9%, p > 0.05). They were also similar in survival rates without infection-related complications or revision surgery at 100 months (91.5% in the culture-negative group vs. 87.9% in the culture-positive group; Mantel‒Cox log-rank χ = 0.251, p = 0.616).

CONCLUSION

The two-stage revision proves to be a well-tolerated and effective procedure in both culture-negative and culture-positive PJI during mid to long-term follow-up.