Use of static or articulating spacers for infection following total knee arthroplasty

Pramod B. Voleti, Keith D. Baldwin, Gwo Chin Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

44 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The so-called gold standard for treatment of periprosthetic joint infection following total knee arthroplasty is two-stage reimplantation. However, it is unclear whether use of static or articulating antibiotic-impregnated spacers during the interim period between these two stages is superior. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of static and articulating spacers in the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty. Methods: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature indexed by MEDLINE and Embase was performed to identify studies reporting the outcomes of antibiotic spacers in the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty. Seven Level-III comparative studies and thirty-two Level-IV case series remained following the screening process. The data in these studies were extracted and aggregated to compare the reinfection rate, range of knee motion, functional scores, and complication rates between static and articulating spacers. Results: The two types of spacers demonstrated similar reinfection rates (7% for articulating and 12% for static, p = 0.2). However, the articulating spacers resulted in significantly greater range of knee motion after reimplantation (101° for articulating and 91° for static, p = 0.0002). Despite this difference in ultimate knee motion, functional scores in the treatment groups were similar. Rates of wound-related and spacer-related complications were similarly low with both types of spacers. Conclusions: Our review failed to identify a significant difference in the ability of static or articulating spacers to eradicate periprosthetic infection following total knee arthroplasty. Compared with static spacers, articulating spacers provided improved knee motion following reimplantation, although functional scores were similar in the two treatment groups. We encourage arthroplasty surgeons to consider both static and articulating spacers in the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty and to tailor treatment on the basis of patient-related factors. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1594-1599
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series A
Volume95
Issue number17
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 4 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Knee Replacement Arthroplasties
Infection
Replantation
Knee
Therapeutics
Articular Range of Motion
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Peer Review
Aptitude
MEDLINE
Arthroplasty
Joints
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Wounds and Injuries

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Medicine(all)
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Use of static or articulating spacers for infection following total knee arthroplasty. / Voleti, Pramod B.; Baldwin, Keith D.; Lee, Gwo Chin.

In: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series A, Vol. 95, No. 17, 04.09.2013, p. 1594-1599.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{49edd8f15848466aa278570e4beb799d,
title = "Use of static or articulating spacers for infection following total knee arthroplasty",
abstract = "Background: The so-called gold standard for treatment of periprosthetic joint infection following total knee arthroplasty is two-stage reimplantation. However, it is unclear whether use of static or articulating antibiotic-impregnated spacers during the interim period between these two stages is superior. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of static and articulating spacers in the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty. Methods: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature indexed by MEDLINE and Embase was performed to identify studies reporting the outcomes of antibiotic spacers in the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty. Seven Level-III comparative studies and thirty-two Level-IV case series remained following the screening process. The data in these studies were extracted and aggregated to compare the reinfection rate, range of knee motion, functional scores, and complication rates between static and articulating spacers. Results: The two types of spacers demonstrated similar reinfection rates (7{\%} for articulating and 12{\%} for static, p = 0.2). However, the articulating spacers resulted in significantly greater range of knee motion after reimplantation (101° for articulating and 91° for static, p = 0.0002). Despite this difference in ultimate knee motion, functional scores in the treatment groups were similar. Rates of wound-related and spacer-related complications were similarly low with both types of spacers. Conclusions: Our review failed to identify a significant difference in the ability of static or articulating spacers to eradicate periprosthetic infection following total knee arthroplasty. Compared with static spacers, articulating spacers provided improved knee motion following reimplantation, although functional scores were similar in the two treatment groups. We encourage arthroplasty surgeons to consider both static and articulating spacers in the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty and to tailor treatment on the basis of patient-related factors. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.",
author = "Voleti, {Pramod B.} and Baldwin, {Keith D.} and Lee, {Gwo Chin}",
year = "2013",
month = "9",
day = "4",
doi = "10.2106/JBJS.L.01461",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "95",
pages = "1594--1599",
journal = "Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume",
issn = "0021-9355",
publisher = "Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Inc.",
number = "17",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Use of static or articulating spacers for infection following total knee arthroplasty

AU - Voleti, Pramod B.

AU - Baldwin, Keith D.

AU - Lee, Gwo Chin

PY - 2013/9/4

Y1 - 2013/9/4

N2 - Background: The so-called gold standard for treatment of periprosthetic joint infection following total knee arthroplasty is two-stage reimplantation. However, it is unclear whether use of static or articulating antibiotic-impregnated spacers during the interim period between these two stages is superior. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of static and articulating spacers in the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty. Methods: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature indexed by MEDLINE and Embase was performed to identify studies reporting the outcomes of antibiotic spacers in the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty. Seven Level-III comparative studies and thirty-two Level-IV case series remained following the screening process. The data in these studies were extracted and aggregated to compare the reinfection rate, range of knee motion, functional scores, and complication rates between static and articulating spacers. Results: The two types of spacers demonstrated similar reinfection rates (7% for articulating and 12% for static, p = 0.2). However, the articulating spacers resulted in significantly greater range of knee motion after reimplantation (101° for articulating and 91° for static, p = 0.0002). Despite this difference in ultimate knee motion, functional scores in the treatment groups were similar. Rates of wound-related and spacer-related complications were similarly low with both types of spacers. Conclusions: Our review failed to identify a significant difference in the ability of static or articulating spacers to eradicate periprosthetic infection following total knee arthroplasty. Compared with static spacers, articulating spacers provided improved knee motion following reimplantation, although functional scores were similar in the two treatment groups. We encourage arthroplasty surgeons to consider both static and articulating spacers in the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty and to tailor treatment on the basis of patient-related factors. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

AB - Background: The so-called gold standard for treatment of periprosthetic joint infection following total knee arthroplasty is two-stage reimplantation. However, it is unclear whether use of static or articulating antibiotic-impregnated spacers during the interim period between these two stages is superior. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of static and articulating spacers in the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty. Methods: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature indexed by MEDLINE and Embase was performed to identify studies reporting the outcomes of antibiotic spacers in the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty. Seven Level-III comparative studies and thirty-two Level-IV case series remained following the screening process. The data in these studies were extracted and aggregated to compare the reinfection rate, range of knee motion, functional scores, and complication rates between static and articulating spacers. Results: The two types of spacers demonstrated similar reinfection rates (7% for articulating and 12% for static, p = 0.2). However, the articulating spacers resulted in significantly greater range of knee motion after reimplantation (101° for articulating and 91° for static, p = 0.0002). Despite this difference in ultimate knee motion, functional scores in the treatment groups were similar. Rates of wound-related and spacer-related complications were similarly low with both types of spacers. Conclusions: Our review failed to identify a significant difference in the ability of static or articulating spacers to eradicate periprosthetic infection following total knee arthroplasty. Compared with static spacers, articulating spacers provided improved knee motion following reimplantation, although functional scores were similar in the two treatment groups. We encourage arthroplasty surgeons to consider both static and articulating spacers in the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty and to tailor treatment on the basis of patient-related factors. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84887240605&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84887240605&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2106/JBJS.L.01461

DO - 10.2106/JBJS.L.01461

M3 - Article

VL - 95

SP - 1594

EP - 1599

JO - Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume

JF - Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume

SN - 0021-9355

IS - 17

ER -