Skip to content

One-stage Versus Two-stage Revision of the Infected Knee Arthroplasty

One-stage Versus Two-stage Revision of the Infected Knee Arthroplasty. a Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial.

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03435679
Enrollment
97
Registered
2018-02-19
Start date
2018-03-01
Completion date
2026-11-18
Last updated
2024-12-11

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Periprosthetic Knee Infection

Keywords

infection, knee arthroplasty, surgical treatment, one-stage, two-stage, outcome

Brief summary

This study investigates functional outcome and safety after one-stage versus two-stage revision of the infected knee arthroplasty. Half of participants are treated with a one-stage surgical procedure, while the other half is treated with a two-stage procedure. The investigators hypothesize that the functional outcome and quality of life of the participants is superior after one-stage surgery compared to two-stage surgery.

Detailed description

A two-stage approach is the standard surgical procedure in the treatment of the chronically infected knee arthroplasty, but promising results have been reported after a one-stage approach from single-centre studies. The potential benefits for the patients treated with a one-stage approach are many as they only have to go through surgery and rehabilitation once with shorter total length of hospital stay. However, no randomized controlled trials comparing outcome after the procedures have been performed so far.

Interventions

PROCEDUREone-stage

one-stage surgery

PROCEDUREtwo-stage

two-stage surgery

Sponsors

Odense Patient Data Explorative Network
CollaboratorOTHER
Region of Southern Denmark
CollaboratorOTHER
Odense University Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Clinical signs of periprosthetic knee infection * \> 6 weeks from previous knee arthoplasty procedure (primary or total revision procedure) * Speak and understand Danish and have given informed consent

Exclusion criteria

* Soft tissue problems requiring plastic surgery * major bone loss requiring mega/tumor-prosthesis * acute surgery due to sepsis * malignant disease with less than 2 years life expectancy * re-infection with previous two-stage procedure * bilateral knee infection

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Oxford Knee Score (AUC)preoperatively 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, 12 months postoperatively.Area Under Curve for Oxford Knee Score

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
EQ-5D-5Lpreoperatively, 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 24 months postoperatively.Quality of life questionnaire
Re-revision rate2 year postoperativelyre-revisions due to infection and other causes
Oxford Knee Score (AUC)preoperatively, 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 24 months postoperatively.Area Under Curve for Oxford Knee Score
readmission rate90 days postoperativelypostoperative readmission rate
Range of Motion2 years postoperativelyRange of motion of the infected/operated knee
mortality90 days postoperatively and 1 and 2 year postoperativelypostoperative mortality

Countries

Denmark

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 16, 2026