{"id":10093,"date":"2026-09-17T09:57:31","date_gmt":"2026-09-17T08:57:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/?p=10093"},"modified":"2026-09-17T09:58:54","modified_gmt":"2026-09-17T08:58:54","slug":"one-stage-or-two-stage-revision-for-infected-shoulder-arthroplasty-a-head-to-head-meta-analysis-of-comparative-studies-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/2026\/09\/17\/one-stage-or-two-stage-revision-for-infected-shoulder-arthroplasty-a-head-to-head-meta-analysis-of-comparative-studies-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"One-Stage or Two-Stage Revision for Infected Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Head-to-Head Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies (2026)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Type of publication:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Systematic review<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Author(s):<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Selim, Amr; *Ibrahim, Abdelrahman; Abbas, Azhar; Sadiq, Salman; Farhan-Alanie, Muhamed M; *Ahmed, Mohammed Lyeeq; Rhee, Jae.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Citation:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

JBJS Reviews. 14(7), 2026 Jul 01.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstract:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following shoulder arthroplasty is a devastating complication associated with substantial morbidity and revision burden. While 2-stage revision has traditionally been regarded as the gold standard for chronic shoulder PJI, single-stage revision has emerged as a potential alternative. The aim of this systematic review was to directly compare infection-related outcomes and complications between single-stage and 2-stage revision arthroplasties for shoulder PJI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

METHODS: This systematic review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251159566) and conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched up to September 22, 2025. Comparative observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating single-stage vs. 2-stage revision for shoulder PJI in adults were eligible; no RCTs were identified. Primary outcomes were reinfection and infection control success; overall complications were secondary. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated within each study and pooled using a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment,
Development and Evaluation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RESULTS: Thirteen retrospective comparative studies involving 260 patients (127 single-stage and 133 two-stage) were included. Compared with 2-stage revision, single-stage revision showed a lower, but not statistically significant, odds of reinfection (OR 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-1.04; p = 0.06; I2 = 0%) and overall complications (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.18-1.53; p = 0.24; I2 = 0%) and a higher, but nonsignificant, odds of infection control success (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.45-5.40; p = 0.48; I2 = 17%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONCLUSION: Single-stage revision demonstrated infection control and complication rates comparable with 2-stage revision for shoulder PJI. Although no statistically significant differences were observed, trends favored single-stage revision. Given that the certainty of the evidence was graded as low, these findings should be interpreted with caution, and high-quality RCTs are required to define optimal patient selection and surgical strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DOI: <\/strong>10.2106\/JBJS.RVW.26.00055<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Type of publication: Systematic review Author(s): Selim, Amr; *Ibrahim, Abdelrahman; Abbas, Azhar; Sadiq, Salman; Farhan-Alanie, Muhamed M; *Ahmed, Mohammed Lyeeq; Rhee, Jae. Citation: JBJS Reviews. 14(7), 2026 Jul 01. Abstract: BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following shoulder arthroplasty is a…<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more One-Stage or Two-Stage Revision for Infected Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Head-to-Head Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies (2026)<\/span> ›<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[200],"tags":[1106,994],"class_list":["post-10093","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-staff-publication","tag-1106","tag-trauma-and-orthopaedics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10093","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10093"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10093\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10097,"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10093\/revisions\/10097"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.library.sath.nhs.uk\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}