RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Surgical techniques in two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) include the use of articulating spacers and static spacers. Shortening of the patellar tendon could be a reason for inferior functional outcomes in two-stage septic rTKA . The aim of this study was to determine if articulating spacers also have negative effects on the extensor mechanism in rTKA. METHODS: This retrospective study includes 65 consecutive patients (23 women, 42 men, age 71.3 ± 1.2; range, 51.2-88.6 years) undergoing septic two-stage rTKA using an articulating spacer between 2014 and 2021 in a single orthopedic center. For all patients, calibrated true lateral radiographs before total knee arthroplasty (TKA) explantation (T0), directly after TKA explantation (T1), shortly before TKA reimplantation (T2) and 6-8 days after TKA reimplantation (T3) were used to calculate the modified Insall Salvati ratio (mISR). RESULTS: Overall, the mISR decreased significantly immediately after explantation (T0 vs. T1, p = 0.002) from 1.43 ± 0.03 to 1.36 ± 0.03 and remained stable until T2 (1.37 ± 0.02, p = 0.74). Following TKA reimplantation, the mISR increased again to 1.43 ± 0.03 (T3). There were no significant differences between T0 and T3 (p = 0.88). Six out of 65 patients (9%) experienced patellar tendon shortening > 10% at T3. CONCLUSIONS: Septic two-stage revision TKA using an articulating spacer does not lead to patellar tendon shortening in the majority of cases. This study suggests that one reason for the improved range of motion after reimplantation may be the use of articulating spacers compared to static spacers.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: A two-stage revision remains the standard for managing chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Despite multiple spacer options, whether a particular one better resists biofilm formation remains unclear. Prefabricated polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) articulating spacers containing antibiotics and a proprietary pore structure were developed to increase antibiotic elution characterized by a rapid burst phase for the initial 1 to 2 days and an extended slow-release phase for > 28 days. This in vitro study determined whether biofilm formation is prevented during the initial rapid burst phase and/or the slow-release phase. METHODS: S. aureus-Xen36 was incubated in 1.5 ml of Luria-Bertani broth with PMMA discs with the proprietary pore structure either with or without gentamycin and vancomycin, or with 'Hoffman style' positive-control discs (ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) or cobalt-chrome). Non-adherent bacteria were removed by three Phosphate Buffered Saline rinses every 20 to 24 hours. Planktonic bacterial growth in the culture broth and biofilm formation on the discs were measured by Colony Forming Unit (CFU) counting and resazurin reduction assays. Experiments were repeated > 4 times. RESULTS: No detectable planktonic bacterial growth or biofilm formation occurred in cultures containing PMMA with antibiotics (≤ 15 CFUs/disc), whereas biofilms formed on PMMA without antibiotics, UHMWPE, and cobalt-chrome (1x107 to 4x108 CFUs/disc, P < 0.0001). Biofilm formation was confirmed by a 100-fold decrease in sensitivity to vancomycin. To determine whether the antibiotic slow-release phase is sufficient to block biofilm formation, PMMA discs with antibiotics were pre-eluted for 14 days with multiple saline changes prior to bacterial inoculation. After antibiotic elution, still no detectable biofilms formed on PMMA discs with antibiotics (≤ 15 CFUs/disc, P <0.0001). CONCLUSION: Antibiotic release during both the initial and slow-release phases prevented biofilm formation on PMMA with the proprietary pore structure. This may translate into improved infection eradication rates clinically.

RESUMEN

Background: Two-stage exchange arthroplasty remains the gold standard for treating chronic hip periprosthetic joint infections. However, controversy remains regarding the optimal spacer type, particularly among patients with increased dislocation risk. This study reports on the outcomes of articulating hip spacers utilizing a single constrained-liner design. Methods: All patients who underwent treatment for hip periprosthetic joint infection at a single institution were screened. Patients were included if they received an articulating spacer utilizing a constrained liner of a single manufacturer design. Indications for constrained liner, demographic variables, and surgical variables were recorded. Patients were assessed for dislocation and component loosening prior to the second stage or at the final follow-up if the second stage was not undertaken. Comparative analysis was performed. Results: Overall, 26 constrained liners were utilized in 25 patients. Indications for constrained liner included history of dislocation (n = 14), massive proximal femoral bone loss (n = 14), greater trochanteric deficiency (n = 12), and absent abductors (n = 7). Many patients had more than one indication. In total, 9 hips (34.6%) underwent a second stage at an average of 7.4 months, while 17 hips never underwent a second stage with an average follow-up of 27.6 months. One patient experienced failure of their constrained liner prior to the second stage due to pelvic discontinuity and massive acetabular bone loss. Conclusions: Utilization of a constrained liner as an articulating spacer is a viable option for patients at high risk of instability. Meticulous cement technique, appropriate component position, and implant selection are crucial in achieving successful outcomes.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Neurovascular compromise following primary or revision total knee arthroplasty is a rare but severe complication. To the best of our knowledge, there have been reports of pseudoaneurysm of the popliteal artery following primary and revision; however, an anterior tibial artery pseudoaneurysm with articulating spacer has not been described yet. CASE PRESENTATION: We introduce a rare case of anterior tibial artery pseudoaneurysm and concomitant foot drop caused by an articulating spacer in a two-stage revision for infected knee replacement. Displacement of the articular spacer was observed on knee x-rays. Hematoma and pseudoaneurysm were detected. The patient was operated on urgently, and a pseudoaneurysm originating from the anterior tibial artery was intraoperatively observed. DISCUSSION: Vascular complications following TKA are rare but could be limb-threatening and even life-threatening. If postoperative displacement of the articulating spacer is observed with neurovascular symptoms, orthopedic surgeons should be alerted to the possibility of a pseudoaneurysm. CONCLUSION: Although rare, anterior tibial artery pseudoaneurysm should be considered among vascular injuries in revision knee arthroplasty cases.

RESUMEN

Two-stage revision with an antibiotic-loaded cement articulating spacer is a standard treatment for chronic prosthetic knee infection (PKI); however, mechanical complications can occur during the spacer period. There is limited evidence on the association between surgeon volume and mechanical complications after resection arthroplasty (RA) using an articulating spacer. This study aimed to compare the rates of mechanical complications and reoperation after RA with articulating spacers by surgeons with high volumes (HV) and low volumes (LV) of RA performed and analyzed the risk factors for mechanical failure. The retrospective study investigated 203 patients treated with PKIs who underwent RA with articulating spacers and were divided according to the number of RAs performed by the surgeons: HV (≥14 RAs/year) or LV (<14 RAs/year). Rates of mechanical complications and reoperations were compared. Risk factors for mechanical complications were analyzed. Of the 203 patients, 105 and 98 were treated by two HV and six LV surgeons, respectively. The mechanical complication rate was lower in HV surgeons (3.8%) than in LV surgeons (36.7%) (p < 0.001). The reoperation rate for mechanical complications was lower in HV surgeons (0.9%) than in LV surgeons (24.5%) (p < 0.001). Additionally, 47.2% of patients required hinge knees after mechanical spacer failure. Medial proximal tibial angle < 87°, recurvatum angle > 5°, and the use of a tibial spacer without a cement stem extension were risk factors for mechanical complications. Based on these findings, we made the following three conclusions: (1) HV surgeons had a lower rate of mechanical complications and reoperation than LV surgeons; (2) mechanical complications increased the level of constraint in final revision knee arthroplasty; and (3) all surgeons should avoid tibial spacer varus malalignment and recurvatum deformity and always use a cement stem extension with a tibial spacer.

RESUMEN

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are a prominent subject of discussion in orthopedics and are frequently debated at conferences and congresses. In the context of PJIs affecting the knee, the decision between following a one-stage or two-stage treatment approach has historically been a pivotal consideration. The first option is limited by indications and potentially devastating complications in case of failure, whereas the second is widely accepted as the gold standard. Initially, the spacer was conceived solely to restore and maintain knee space after removal of the implant. An articulating spacer was introduced to mitigate patient limitations and improve knee function and quality of life. Two main types of articulating spacers are utilized in knee PJI treatment: the mold spacer and the metal-on-poly spacer. This text outlines a technique for metal-on-poly spacer implants. Based on our experience and the existing literature, this approach facilitates early full weight bearing and faster recovery of the knee's range of motion, ultimately improving the quality of life after surgery, thus allowing the spacer retention for an extended period, as suggested by the 1.5-stage revision.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is considered the most common approach for the management of prosthetic joint infections. There has been plentiful evidence to support the superiority of the mobile spacers over the static ones. Unfortunately, articulating options are not available in our low-resource environment, which motivated us to come up with an affordable way to create a mobile cement spacer. After experimenting with a variety of materials and producing methods, we realized that silicone is a favorable material for mold building and established a simple process of making a handmade silicone mold. We demonstrate the clinical outcomes of three prosthetic joint infections by using these spacers in the hope of spreading the idea to our colleagues who work in the circumstances of a developing country. Construction of the spacer molds: The molds, consisting of two parts, were shaped by using high viscosity addition silicone (elite HD+ putty soft, Zhermack SpA, Italy) as material, and previously removed implants as template. They were sterilized using ethylene oxide treatment before being ready for casting antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacer. CASE REPORT: Three cases of prosthetic infection were treated with two-stage revision, using antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer cast in hand-made silicone molds. We sought to determine intraoperative complications, postoperative range of motion, and functional scores. All the patients were regularly followed up to identify fractures or dislocation of the spacer, and reinfection. RESULTS: At the end of the follow-up, all three patients had the infection eradicated. The three patients could sit comfortably with bent knees, walk with partial weight-bearing, and achieve 75-80 degrees of knee flexion in the first week after surgery. Follow-up X-rays revealed no fractures or dislocation in any of the spacers. CONCLUSION: Silicone molds offer a simple and cost-effective alternative to costly commercial products in producing articulating spacers. Treating infected joints arthroplasty with these spacers allows for early motion and partial weight bearing and improves patient satisfaction and life quality before reimplantation without significant complications.

RESUMEN

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess the survivorship rates of 2-stage treatment with gentamicin-impregnated polymethylmethacrylate articulated knee spacer in patients with chronic periprosthetic joint infection and to identify risk factors associated with failure. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study among 73 patients with chronic periprosthetic joint infection after primary total knee replacement with articulated polymethylmethacrylate gentamicin-impregnated spacers (Subiton, Medical Labs, Ind Argentina), performed in a single institution with a minimum follow-up of 7 years. Clinical and functional assessment was performed with Knee Society Score and Western and Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. A univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify the variables that influenced the success and failure rates. Results: We included 73 patients. There were 53 (71.3%) monomicrobial, 11 (15%) polymicrobial, and 10 (13.7%) negative cultures infections. The success and failure rates were 90.5% (n = 66) and 9.5% (n = 7), respectively. Multivariate analysis identified that age (odds ratio = 1.77; P = .039), greater erythrocyte sedimentation rate values prior to the first stage (odds ratio = 1.04; P = .006), and polymicrobial infections (odds ratio = 7.32; P = .0003) were independent variables associated with failure. Conclusions: Two-stage revision with polymethylmethacrylate gentamicin-impregnated knee spacers is an effective strategy for the treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty. Age, higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate values prior first stage, and polymicrobial infections were independent risk factors for treatment failure.

RESUMEN

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most common complications after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Two-stage revision surgery is one of the treatment options for PJI, however, it has been associated with poor patient tolerance, reduced patient mobility, and periarticular tissue contracture leading to difficulty during second-stage reconstruction. The custom-made articulating spacer (CUMARS) was developed to provide an alternative that is better tolerated and to reduce the complexity of second-stage reconstruction. This study details the treatment of a patient with PJI post-THA with significant periosteal reaction using a CUMARS construct, which enabled immediate post-operative weight bearing, eventual eradication of infection, restoration of femoral bone stock, and avoidance of second-stage reconstruction.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a destructive complication of knee replacement surgery (KR). In two-stage revision a spacer is required to maintain limb length and alignment and provide a stable limb on which to mobilise. Spacers may be articulating or static with the gold standard spacer yet to be defined. The aims of this scoping review were to summarise the types of static spacer used to treat PJI after KR, their indications for use and early complication rates. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review based on the Joanna Briggs Institute's "JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis" Scoping review reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from 2005 to 2022 for studies on the use of static spacers for PJI after KR. RESULTS: 41 studies (1230 patients/knees) were identified describing 42 static spacer constructs. Twenty-three (23/42 [54.2%]) incorporated cement augmented with metalwork, while nineteen (19/42, [45.9%]) were made of cement alone. Spacers were most frequently anchored in the diaphysis (22/42, [53.3%]), particularly in the setting of extensive bone loss (mean AORI Type = F3/T3; 11/15 studies 78.3% diaphyseal anchoring). 7.1% (79 of 1117 knees) of static spacers had a complication requiring further surgery prior to planned second stage with the most common complication being infection (86.1%). CONCLUSIONS: This study has summarised the large variety in static spacer constructs used for staged revision KR for PJI. Static spacers were associated with a high risk of complications and further work in this area is required to improve the quality of care in this vulnerable group.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most devastating complication following total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and is posing a global healthcare challenge as the demand for TJA mounts. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty with the placement of antibiotic-loaded spacers has been shown to be efficacious against chronic PJI. This study aimed to review the key concepts, types, and outcome evaluations of articulating spacers in the two-stage exchange for PJI. Previous studies indicated that articulating spacers have been widely used due to better functional improvement and a comparable infection control rate relative to static spacers. Several types of articulating spacers are reportedly available, including hand-made spacers, spacers fashioned from molds, commercially preformed spacers, spacers with additional metal or polyethylene elements, new or autoclaved prosthesis, custom-made articulating spacers, and 3D printing-assisted spacers. However, limited evidence suggested no significant difference in clinical outcomes among the different subtypes of articulating spacers. Surgeons should be familiar with different treatment strategies when using various spacers to know which is the most appropriate.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Although 2-stage revision has been proposed as gold standard for periprosthetic joint infection treatment, limited evidence exists for the role of articulating spacers as definitive management. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and costs associated with articulating spacers (1.5-stage) and a matched 2-stage cohort. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for patients who had chronic periprosthetic joint infections after total knee arthroplasty defined by Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria and were matched via propensity score matching using cumulative Musculoskeletal Infection Society scores and a comorbidity index. Patients who maintained an articulating spacer (cemented cobalt-chrome femoral component and all-poly tibia) were included in the 1.5-stage cohort. Patients who underwent a 2-stage reimplantation procedure were included in the 2-stage cohort. Outcomes included visual analog scale pain scores, 90-day emergency department visits, 90-day readmission, unplanned reoperation, reinfection, as well as cost at 1 and 2-year intervals. A total of 116 patients were included for analyses. RESULTS: The 90-day pain scores were lower in the 1.5-stage cohort compared to the 2-stage cohort (2.9 versus 4.6, P = .0001). There were no significant differences between readmission and reoperation rates. Infection clearance was equivalent at 79.3% for both groups. Two-stage exchange demonstrated an increased cost difference of $26,346 compared to 1.5-stage through 2 years (P = .0001). Regression analyses found 2 culture-positive results with the same organism decreased the risk for reinfection [odds ratio: 0.2, 95% confidence interval 0.04-0.8, P = .03]. CONCLUSION: For high-risk candidates, articulating spacers can preserve knee function, reduce morbidity from second-stage surgery, and lower the costs with similar rates of infection clearance as 2-stage exchange. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Although 2-stage exchange arthroplasty, consisting of temporary insertion of an antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer (AICS), is considered the standard of care for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA), a consensus on the AICS design has not yet been established. Ceramic-on-polyethylene AICSs (Poly-AICS) are theorized to cause less pain and better function than cement-on-bone AICS (CemB-AICS) but use non-antibiotic-impregnated components that may harbor bacteria. This study evaluates the impact of spacer design on infection-free survivorship following THA reimplantation as well as pain and function during the interim AICS stage. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of all cases of THA PJI treated with either Poly-AICS or CemB-AICS at a single high-volume academic center. Data were collected until the final follow-up after THA reimplantation with an average follow-up duration of 2.6 years. The primary outcome was infection-free survivorship after the final reimplantation. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain scores, opioid use, time to ambulation, length of stay, complications, and discharge disposition. Results: A total of 99 cases (67 CemB-AICS; 32 Poly-AICS) were included. There were no baseline differences between the 2 groups. There were no differences in infection-free survivorship after reimplantation in survivorship curve comparisons (P = .122) and no differences in postoperative inpatient pain scores, opioid use, length of stay, time to ambulation, complications, or discharge disposition during the AICS stage. Conclusions: Patients with THA PJI treated with Poly-AICS did not have worse infection-related outcomes despite the use of non-antibiotic-impregnated components but also did not appear to have less pain or improved function during the early AICS stage.

RESUMEN

AIMS: Two-stage exchange revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed in case of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been considered for many years as being the gold standard for the treatment of chronic infection. However, over the past decade, there have been concerns about its safety and its effectiveness. The purposes of our study were to investigate our practice, collecting the overall spacer complications, and then to analyze their risk factors. METHODS: We retrospectively included 125 patients with chronic hip PJI who underwent a staged THA revision performed between January 2013 and December 2019. All spacer complications were systematically collected, and risk factors were analyzed. Statistical evaluations were performed using the Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Our staged exchange practice shows poor results, which means a 42% mechanical spacer failure rate, and a 20% recurrent infection rate over the two years average follow-up period. Moreover, we found a high rate of spacer dislocation (23%) and a low rate of spacer fracture (8%) compared to the previous literature. Our findings stress that the majority of spacer complications and failures is reflecting a population with high comorbid burden, highlighted by the American Society of Anesthesiology grade, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Lee score associations, as well as the cardiac, pulmonary, kidney, or hepatic chronic conditions. CONCLUSION: Our experience of a two-stage hip exchange revision noted important complication rates associated with high failure rates of polymethylmethacrylate spacers. These findings must be interpreted in the light of the patient's comorbidity profiles, as the elective population for staged exchange has an increasing comorbid burden leading to poor results. In order to provide better results for this specific population, our conclusion suggests that comparative strategy studies are required to improve our therapeutic indication. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(6):485-494.

RESUMEN

Purpose: Two-stage revision is the most common treatment for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Few studies have compared the clinical efficacy of different articulating spacers. This study compared the outcomes of all-cement articulating spacers and sterilized replanted metal-polyethylene articulating spacers for PJI following TKA. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective observational study, 47 patients who received two-stage revision for PJI following TKA between 2006 and 2020 in our hospital were included. Patients were categorized as receiving an all-cement articulating spacer or a sterilized replanted metal-polyethylene articulating spacer in exclusion. Data on demographics, surgical information, and outcomes were collected in 2021. Results: Forty-seven spacers were identified: all-cement spacer was noted in 23 patients and sterilized replanted spacer in 24. Patients in the all-cement spacer group had shorter operation time (155.87 ± 33.12 vs 189.79 ± 51.21 min; P = 0.0102) and less blood loss (845.22 ± 525.92 vs 1114.50 ± 547.81 mL; P = 0.0427) in exclusion. Patients in the sterilized replanted spacer group had superior interval range of motion (ROM; 61.00 ± 31.94° vs 31.75 ± 33.38°; P = 0.0072), postoperative ROM (85.00 ± 11.11° vs 77.37 ± 9.18°; P = 0.0329) as compared to all-cement spacers, but there was no difference in infection control between 2 groups. Conclusion: The two types of spacers had no difference in the reinfection rate, indicating that both articulating spacers are safe and effective for 2-stage revision. Considering ROM of knee joint, bone loss and cost, sterilized replanted metal-polyethylene spacers are preferred in the treatment of PJI.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Two-stage revision remains the gold standard treatment for most chronically infected and complex total hip arthroplasty infections. To improve patient outcome and reduce complication rates, we have developed a novel custom-made articulating hip spacer technique and present our short-term results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between November 2017 and November 2019, 27 patients (mean age 70 years) underwent two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection of the hip using the articulating spacer design described here. We retrospectively analyzed spacer-related complications as well as rates for complication, infection control, and implant survivorship after final reimplantation. Furthermore, we prospectively collected patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores prior to spacer implantation, with the spacer and after reimplantation of the new prosthesis. RESULTS: An additional round of spacer exchange was performed in two patients (8.3%), persistent wound discharge was the reason in both cases. We had one (4.2%) spacer-related mechanical complication, a dislocation that was treated with closed reduction. After reimplantation, infection control was achieved in 96% with an implant survivorship of 92% after a mean follow-up time of 19 (range 7-32, SD 7.2) months. While the scores for VR-12 MCS, VAS hip pain and patient-reported overall satisfaction significantly improved after first stage surgery, the scores for WOMAC, UCLA and VR-12 PCS significantly improved after second stage surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Our two-stage approach for periprosthetic joint infection shows high infection eradication and implant survivorship rates at short-term follow-up. Spacer-related complication rates were low, and we achieved high patient satisfaction rates and low pain levels already during the spacer period. To further simplify comparison between different spacer designs, we propose a new hip spacer classification system.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Various prefabricated articulating spacer options have been described for 2-stage treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection, but their results are poorly generalizable between designs due to differing antibiotic and material properties. This study reports outcomes for a novel, prefabricated, commercially available cement-on-cement articulating spacer. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data for patients undergoing treatment with a prefabricated articulating cement spacer was performed. Outcomes were categorized as spacer complications, reimplantation rates, function, reinfection, and mortality. RESULTS: Seventy-six knees and 28 hips were analyzed. Spacer survival free of fracture, instability, or other implant-related complication until reimplantation was 100%. There were no bony or spacer fractures during the interstage or reimplantation. Reimplantation occurred in 84.6% of resected joints. Following spacer implantation, all but 1 patient was allowed to bear weight. The proportion of patients requiring an assistive device decreased from 67% prior to resection to 31% following reimplantation. Knee flexion improved from an average of 88.1° before resection to 111.9° following reimplantation. Eighty-seven percent of cases were infection free at mean follow-up of 16.6 ± 10.4 months. CONCLUSION: Study results demonstrate that this novel, prefabricated, articulating antibiotic spacer is safe, allows for good interstage function, and results in reasonable infection eradication rates at early term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic cement articulating spacers are recommended during 2-stage revision for prosthetic knee infection because of increased range of motion (ROM) and improved function; however, spacer mechanical complications have been reported. We aimed to determine the association between different constraints of articulating spacers and the rate of complications and infection eradication, functional outcomes, and ROM. METHODS: A retrospective study of prosthetic knee infection using cruciate-retaining (CR) or posterior-stabilized (PS) spacers was conducted between 2011 and 2018. The rate of spacer mechanical complications, infection eradication after reimplantation and reoperation, Hospital of Special Surgery (HSS) knee score, and ROM during the interim stage were analyzed. All patients were regularly followed up for 2 years. RESULTS: One hundred forty-one patients were included, with 66 CR and 75 PS spacers. Overall mechanical complication rate was lower in PS (9.3%) than in CR spacers (45.5%) (P < .001), especially in joint dislocation (1.3% vs 30.3%, respectively, P < .001). Overall reoperation rate was lower in PS (16.0%) than in CR spacers (36.4%) (P < .001), especially for mechanical complications (1.3% vs 24.2%, respectively, P < .001). HSS knee score was higher in PS (72.3) than in CR spacers (63.8) (P < .001). ROM was greater in PS (90.3°) than in CR spacers (80.6°) (P = .005), especially at maximum flexion (102.4° vs 89.6°, respectively, P = .003). Infection eradication was comparable between the spacers. CONCLUSION: Both spacers can control infection; however, PS spacers had a lower rate of mechanical complications and reoperation, better HSS knee scores, and greater ROM than CR spacers.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The most common treatment for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a 2-stage revision. Few studies have compared different articulating spacer constructs. This study compares the outcomes of real-component and all-cement articulating spacers for TKA PJI treatment. METHODS: This retrospective observational study examined the arthroplasty database at 3 academic hospitals for articulating spacers placed for TKA PJIs between April 2011 and August 2020. Patients were categorized as receiving a real-component or an all-cement articulating spacer. Data on demographics, surgical information, and outcomes were collected. RESULTS: One-hundred sixty-four spacers were identified: 72 all-cement and 92 real-component spacers. Patients who received real-component spacers were older (67 ± 10 vs 63 ± 12 years; P = .04) and more likely to be former smokers (50.0% vs 28.6%; P = .02). Real-component spacers had greater range of motion (ROM) after Stage 1 (84° ± 28° vs 58° ± 28°; P < .01) and shorter hospital stays after Stage 1 (5.8 ± 4.3 vs 8.4 ± 6.8 days; P < .01). There was no difference in time to reimplantation, change in ROM from pre-Stage 1 to most recent follow-up, or reinfection. Real-component spacers had shorter hospital stays (3.3 ± 1.7 vs 5.4 ± 4.9 days; P < .01) and operative times during Stage 2 (162.2 ± 47.5 vs 188.0 ± 66.0 minutes; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Real-component spacers had improved ROM after Stage 1 and lower blood loss, shorter operative time, and shorter hospital stays after Stage 2 compared to all-cement articulating spacers. The 2 spacer constructs had the same ultimate change in ROM and no difference in reinfection rates, indicating that both articulating spacer types may be safe and effective options for 2-stage revision TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective observational analysis.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND:  This study evaluates 15 years' results of the implantation of autoclaved femoral and tibial prosthesis components together with a new same brand polyethylene insert which were used as a temporary articulating spacer in patients with periprosthetic infection of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in a two-stage reimplantation procedure in 6 patients.  Material and methods. The femoral and tibial prostheses of 6 patients with deep chronic periprosthetic infection of TKA who underwent elective two-stage exchange arthroplasty were autoclaved and reinserted with a new polyethylene insert of the same brand and bone cement mixed with tecoplanin in 2004. RESULTS: Four patients were followed for 15 years. They were all female and between 47-70 years old. The infectious agent was meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in 3 and coagulase negative Staphy-lococcus in one patient. Patients were invited for second stage reimplantation, but they refused to undergo the second stage. Three of them had their second stage reimplantation after 15, 13 and 10 years while one patient was reinfected after 5 years, in 2009, and arthrodesis was performed. They were all happy with the result and infection free at last follow-up.  Conclusions. 1. Regarding the results of our patients, reinsertion of autoclaved femoral and tibial prostheses together with a new same brand polyethylene insert with teicoplanin loaded bone cement can be used cautiously in the management of periprosthetic deep infection of TKA. 2. That is because patients might not want the second stage reimplantation. 3. We believe that the refusal of patients to undergo the surgery shows that the single-stage treatment is effective.

Asunto(s)