Deep prosthetic joint infection is an uncommon but serious complication of hip replacement [4]. Estimated incidences in UK populations are 0.45% to 0.57% [5,6], and the estimated incidence is 0.88% in the United States [7]. Infections that occur within 2 years of surgery are usually surgically acquired [8]. Surgical site infections have a very negative effect on patients. Typically, patients describe extreme pain, prolonged immobilisation, isolation and insecurity, as well as feelings of hopelessness [9]. Deep infection of hip prostheses puts patients at risk for these problems, and, if untreated, they can result in severe pain, persistent dislocation and death [10].

Conservative treatment with prosthesis retention may be considered in early infection if there is no evidence of prosthesis loosening or significant damage to soft tissue, as well as for infections that can be treated with antibiotics [8]. Typical rates of hip infection clearance of 89% [11] and 87% [12] have been reported recently. However, the need for long-term and possibly lifelong antibiotic treatment is acknowledged [12]. Treatment with prosthesis retention is not recorded in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales, but typically about 19% of prosthetic hip infections may be treated by using this method [13].

For the majority of patients with prosthetic hip infection, further major operations are required in an attempt to clear infection and reduce the need for joint excision or amputation. Surgical revision involves prosthesis removal and debridement with either immediate (one-stage) or delayed (two-stage) joint replacement or with excision (Girdlestone procedure). In England and Wales, about 500 hip revision procedures per year are required as a consequence of infection with treatment in one-stage revision (30%), two-stage revision (64%) or excision (6%) [1]. Two-stage revision is traditionally regarded as being more effective in treating infection, which probably explains the preponderance of two-stage revisions. The requirement of an extra hospital admission and a further major surgical procedure, however, means that a two-stage revision may cost 70% more than a one-stage revision [14].

We searched the Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases up to March 2011 for reviews, longitudinal studies and clinical trials. The search strategy used in MEDLINE is shown in Additional file 1, Table A2. The search included terms relating to hip replacement, infection and revision and focused on one- and two-stage surgeries. Thus, the search should have identified all studies in patients receiving contemporary surgical treatment options. We also searched reference lists and performed a citation search of key articles in the ISI Web of Science portal. No language restrictions were applied, which is an important consideration with the perceived international interest in treatment of infected hip prostheses.

Results of searches were stored in an EndNote X3/4 database (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY, USA). One reviewer (ADB) scanned titles and abstracts. Potentially relevant articles were acquired, and inclusion decisions were made separately, by two reviewers (ADB and KTE). Ultimately, decisions on inclusion were based on consensus.

We aimed to classify studies as follows: systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials or longitudinal studies in all patients with infection treated exclusively by one- or two-stage methods or by a variety of methods (including some by one- and some by two-stage). Studies excluded from this analysis reported case series of methods in selected patients (subsamples of patients who received revision in one or two stages or patients with a specific infection), had no outcomes by intention to treat, reported data for hip and knee combined or did not include patients with less than 2 years of follow-up.

To assess whether this selection strategy affected outcomes, we also analysed 2-year outcomes in any groups of patients who had received either one- or two-stage revision. We did not include studies where patients were treated only by joint excision with no prosthesis replacement.

Data were extracted in duplicate by two reviewers (ADB and KTE), with discrepancies resolved by discussion. Good practice in systematic reviews includes contact with authors to obtain additional information [15]. We did not contact authors, however, as many studies were published over 20 years ago and therefore we did not anticipate a good response.

The following studies were included: two systematic reviews comparing one- and two-stage methods in longitudinal studies [17,18], eleven studies (thirteen articles) of exclusively one-stage revisions (articles A1 to A13), twenty-eight studies (twenty-seven articles) of exclusively two-stage revisions (articles A14 to A40) and twenty-three studies (twenty-four articles) where treatments comprised one- or two-stage revisions and/or other surgical methods (articles A41 to A64). Two studies were randomised controlled trials evaluating use of antibiotic beads (article A30) or spacer (article A14), and groups were treated as separate studies. However, no randomised trials comparing one- and two-stage methods were identified.

The review article reported by Gallo and colleagues compared the outcomes of one-stage and two-stage revisions and excision arthroplasty in longitudinal studies [17]. The authors used systematic search methods but did not show the details of the 77 included studies published up to November 2006 in patients with hip and knee infections. The use of relative risks in their study indicates that the authors included studies where one- and two-stage methods were conducted in the same population. This approach does not address expected bias arising from selection of patients by health status and infection severity.

In their review, Wolf and colleagues reported an increased reinfection rate after one-stage revisions (12.3%) compared with two-stage revisions (6.5%) of infected total hip replacement [18]. In the studies they classified as two-stage revisions, however, more patients died. Searches up to May 2008 were limited to MEDLINE and publications in a major orthopaedic journal.

Longitudinal studies that we identified, regardless of size, are summarised in Additional file 1, Table A3. This includes descriptive information, our justifications for including the study as unselected (consecutive prosthetic hip infections) and the outcome as reflecting infection within 2 years of revision (if described). We also present an estimate of the 2-year reinfection rate in each study. Studies including 50 or more patients are summarised in Table ​Table11.

The studies we included reported data from infected hips identified over extended periods with a mean of 8.5 years (range 3 to 17 years) for studies of exclusively one- or two-stage revisions. Generally, information on reinfection was clear, and, in some articles, data on individual patients was provided. Where possible, we used data on reinfection within 2 years of treatment, but this was not always the case.

Evidence on the relative effectiveness of one- and two-stage revisions in preventing reinfection of hip prostheses is largely based on interpretation of longitudinal studies. Reviews of longitudinal studies and particularly case series are limited by the possibility of publication bias and other sources of bias. We used systematic review methods to identify studies that described outcomes specifically after one- or two-stage revisions in consecutive and generally unselected patients.

Despite our aim to include only studies of unselected patients undergoing surgical revision, we recognise an earlier phase of selection related to management without further replacement. Different protocols, eligibility criteria and use of treatments with prosthesis retention may affect the representativeness of the study populations we included and may explain the high degree of statistical heterogeneity we observed. As is true of a review of treatment of infected knee prostheses by Jämsen and colleagues, however, we believe that it is important to attempt to include "only papers reporting a pure series of either one-stage or two-stage revision" [43] (p. 72). This is supported by the somewhat different reinfection rates we observed when we included studies that included patients selected for a particular revision method on the basis of infection severity and other aspects of patient health.

In this overview of studies in unselected patients, we specified prevention of reinfection as the key aim of revision surgery. In discussions with our advisory group of patients with joint replacement, patients recognised that clearance of infection is of paramount importance. Achievement of a functional, painless hip is the aim of any revision hip replacement [44], however, and the importance of patient-reported outcomes in assessing joint replacement outcome is widely recognised [45]. In their review, Wolf and colleagues explored patient preferences for one- or two-stage revision in a Markov simulation model [18]. In addition to outcomes reported in longitudinal studies, they used data collected from nonorthopaedic outpatients on trade-offs between impaired health versus full health with shortened life, as well as time with constant severe pain. They concluded that, compared to a two-stage procedure, one-stage revision was associated with greater benefit in terms of quality-adjusted life years.

One- and two-stage methods are perceived to have specific advantages and disadvantages. With a one-stage approach and a single major surgery, recovery is quicker. The advantages of two-stage treatment relate to the opportunity to apply an enhanced antimicrobial strategy between excision and reimplantation surgeries. The results of bacteriological samples obtained at surgery can be used to guide antibiotic treatment, and the period between stages is an opportunity for insertion of antibiotic-impregnated cement beads into the joint space. In two-stage revisions, however, patients experience considerable restriction of movement during the period between implant removal and replacement [4]. Two-stage revision is often considered essential for more virulent infections. Nevertheless, Leung and colleagues reported a reinfection rate of 21% after two-stage revision in patients with resistant infections [46].

To reduce long-term problems resulting from an extended period without an implant, an antibiotic-impregnated cement "spacer" may be used to maintain some function and a correct leg length and to reduce long-term problems associated with disuse. Although spacers improve patient mobility, complications can arise. For example, in 88 spacer implantations performed by Jung and colleagues, there were 15 spacer dislocations (17%), 9 spacer fractures (10%) and an overall complication rate of 58.5% [47].

The economic implications of uncomplicated one- and two-stage revision differ considerably. Although a one-stage procedure may require a prolonged hospital stay to facilitate intravenous antibiotic therapy, the main determinant of cost is the requirement for additional surgery in a two-stage revision. In the United Kingdom, the cost to the NHS of each complicated hip procedure is over £8,000 [48]. Klouche and colleagues estimated that the cost of managing a patient with an infected hip prosthesis is 3.6 times greater than that of a primary total hip replacement and that two-stage revisions cost 1.7 times more than one-stage revisions [14].

Forty-three years of data collection do not conclusively support a specific treatment for prosthetic hip infection. The thoroughness of data collected over extended periods suggests the possibility of individual patient data synthesis with time-to-event analyses [49]. We concur with Matthews and colleagues, however, that large, multicentre, randomised trials are needed to establish optimum management strategies [4], and this is particularly apparent regarding surgical options. It could be argued that appropriate randomised trials are not feasible because of the limited opportunities of an individual surgeon to gain experience in using a particular technique. However, the surgical techniques familiar to surgeons operating with the more widely used two-stage strategy and with aseptic revision (a single-stage revision) include most of the skills required.

The acceptability to patients of methods and their evaluation is of overriding importance. It is notable that only two studies collected data regarding patient-centred outcomes. If reinfection rates are similar between methods, the possibility of a single major surgery, reduced overall hospitalisation and avoidance of a prolonged period without a permanent implant would make a one-stage procedure preferable. Conversely, it could be argued that the long-term, targeted antibiotic regimen associated with contemporary two-stage treatment should not be withheld.