Comparison Between Articulating vs. Fixed Spacers in Revision for Periprosthetic Knee Infection
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients who had undergone a knee prosthetic revision due to infection in two surgical stages. Functionality was analyzed according to the Knee Society Score (KSS) one year after surgery and ROM was recorded 45 days after surgery. Bone defect, pain, satisfaction, complications, and recurrence of infection were recorded.
Results: A total of 103 patients were included. 40 with articulating spacers and 63 with fixed spacers. The articulating spacer group presents a median of 2.5 degrees greater in final mobility (102.5 IQR 95-110 vs 100 IQR 90-105, p 0.01). The KSS functional scale and KSS of the knee did not show differences between the two groups. There were no differences concerning satisfaction, pain, and time until reimplantation. Complicationswere similar in both groups, with a reinfection rate without statistically significant differences.
Conclusion: Articulating spacers have shown a benefit in ROM after prosthetic reimplantation.
Downloads
Metrics
Article Details
Manuscript acceptance by the Journal implies the simultaneous non-submission to any other journal or publishing house. The RAAOT is under the Licencia Creative Commnos Atribución-NoComercial-Compartir Obras Derivadas Igual 4.0 Internacional (CC-BY-NC.SA 4.0) (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es). Articles can be shared, copied, distributed, modified, altered, transformed into a derivative work, executed and publicly communicated, provided a) the authors and the original publication (Journal, Publisher and URL) are mentioned, b) they are not used for commercial purposes, c) the same terms of the license are maintained.
In the event that the manuscript is approved for its next publication, the authors retain the copyright and will assign to the journal the rights of publication, edition, reproduction, distribution, exhibition and communication at a national and international level in the different databases. data, repositories and portals.
It is hereby stated that the mentioned manuscript has not been published and that it is not being printed in any other national or foreign journal.
The authors hereby accept the necessary modifications, suggested by the reviewers, in order to adapt the manuscript to the style and publication rules of this Journal.
References
Acad Orthop Surg 2020;28:180-8. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-19-00332
2. Warth LC, Hadley CJ, Grossman EL. Two-stage treatment for total knee arthroplasty infection utilizing an
articulating prefabricated antibiotic spacer. J Arthroplasty 2020;35:S57-S62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.10.049
3. Guild GN 3rd, Wu B, Scuderi GR. Articulating vs. static antibiotic impregnated spacers in revision total knee
arthroplasty for sepsis. A systematic review. J Arthroplasty 2014;29: 558-63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.08.013
4. Pivec R, Naziri Q, Issa K, Banerjee S, Mont MA. Systematic review comparing static and articulating spacers used for revision of infected total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014;29:553-7.e1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.041
5. Mazzucchelli L, Rosso F, Marmotti A, Bonasia DE, Bruzzone M, Rossi R. The use of spacers (static and mobile) in
infection knee arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015;8:373-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-015-9293-8
6. Liow RY, Walker K, Wajid MA, Bedi G, Lennox CM. The reliability of the American Knee Society Score. Acta
Orthop Scand 2000;71:603-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/000164700317362244
7. Kahlenberg CA, Nwachukwu BU, McLawhorn AS, Cross MB, Cornell CN, Padgett DE. Patient satisfaction after
total knee replacement: a systematic review. HSS J 2018;14:192-201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-018-9614-8
8. Langley GB, Sheppeard H. The visual analogue scale: its use in pain measurement. Rheumatol Int 1985;5:145-8.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00541514
9. Engh GA, Parks NL. The management of bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect
1997;46:227-36. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9143967
10. Arden N, Nevitt MC. Osteoarthritis: epidemiology. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2006;20:3-25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2005.09.007
11. Wyles CC, Abdel MP. Point/Counterpoint: Nonarticulating vs articulating spacers for resection arthroplasty of the knee or hip. J Arthroplasty 2020;35:S40-S44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.10.055
12. Parvizi J, Gehrke T, Chen AF. Proceedings of the International Consensus on Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Bone Joint J 2013;95B:1450-2. https//doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B11.33135
13. Voleti PB, Baldwin KD, Lee G-C. Use of static or articulating spacers for infection following total knee
arthroplasty: a systematic literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95:1594-9.
https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.01461
14. Bowman EC, Malkani AL. Point/Counterpoint: Static vs articulating spacers-static spacers for resection arthroplasty of the knee. J Arthroplasty 2020;35:S35-S39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.10.033