Spacer prostheses in two-stage revision of infected knee arthroplasty
- PMID: 16565839
- PMCID: PMC2532134
- DOI: 10.1007/s00264-006-0102-2
Spacer prostheses in two-stage revision of infected knee arthroplasty
Abstract
At present, no consensus exists on the best spacer alternative for the management of two-stage exchange arthroplasty of infected knee arthroplasties. In this retrospective study, patient records of 24 patients, who had undergone two-stage revisions in which resterilised prosthetic components were used as spacers, were reviewed. The outcome was compared to that of operations performed during the same period (1993-2003) using cement spacers (n=10). With an average follow-up of 32 months, control of infection was achieved in 26 cases (76%), with good or excellent clinical outcome in 19 cases (56%). Treatment failed and resulted in amputation at the level of the thigh before reimplantation in one case. Three patients did not undergo reimplantation. In four cases (12%) infection relapsed. The reinfection rate did not differ between the two spacer groups. Patients treated with resterilised components had a superior range of motion during the period between the two stages. Operative time was shorter and there was less blood loss in the reimplantation arthroplasty when a prosthetic spacer was used. We consider resterilised prosthetic components a safe and effective alternative to cement spacers in the management of infected knee arthroplasties.
Il n’existe pas actuellement de consensus sur les meilleurs spacers à utiliser dans le traitement des reprises en deux temps des prothèses totales du genou infectées. Dans cette étude rétrospective, 24 patients ont été évalués, patients ayant bénéficié d’un changement prothétique en deux temps, le spacer utilisé pouvant être les composants prothétiques stérilisés. Nous avons comparé le devenir de cette série (1993–2003) à une autre série traitée pendant la même période et en utilisant un spacer en ciment (10 patients). Le délai moyen était de 32 mois et la guérison de l’infection a été obtenue dans 76% des cas (26) avec un excellent ou un bon résultat dans 19 cas (56%). Les échecs du traitement sont secondaires à une amputation de cuisse avant la réimplantation (un cas). Trois patients n’ont pas eu de réimplantation et dans 4 cas (12%) l’infection a récidivé. La récidive de l’infection n’est pas différente entre les deux groupes de patients quelle que soit la nature du spacer. Les patients traités avec des composants prothétiques re-stérilisés ont eu une meilleure mobilité pendant la période intermédiaire. Le temps opératoire et les pertes sanguines sont significativement diminués lorsque le spacer utilisé est la prothèse re-stérilisée. Nous considérons en conclusion, que la re-stérilisation du composant prothétique est une méthode sure, efficace et une bonne alternative au spacer en ciment lors du traitement des prothèses totales du genou infectées.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Are prosthetic spacers safe to use in 2-stage treatment for infected total knee arthroplasty?J Arthroplasty. 2012 Sep;27(8):1474-1479.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.023. Epub 2012 Apr 13. J Arthroplasty. 2012. PMID: 22503491
-
An intraoperatively moulded PMMA prostheses like spacer for two-stage revision of infected total knee arthroplasty.Knee. 2011 Dec;18(6):464-9. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2010.09.002. Epub 2010 Oct 13. Knee. 2011. PMID: 20947358 Clinical Trial.
-
[Results of reimplantation for infected total knee arthroplasty: 107 cases].Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2006 Nov;92(7):692-700. doi: 10.1016/s0035-1040(06)75930-x. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2006. PMID: 17124453 French.
-
Articulating antibiotic impregnated spacers in two-stage revision of infected total knee arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Nov;94(11 Suppl A):123-5. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B11.30747. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012. PMID: 23118399 Review.
-
Comparison of infection eradication rate of using articulating spacers containing bio-inert materials versus all-cement articulating spacers in revision of infected TKA: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 May;139(5):695-707. doi: 10.1007/s00402-019-03121-x. Epub 2019 Mar 8. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019. PMID: 30850888
Cited by
-
Treatment options in PJI - is two-stage still gold standard?J Orthop. 2021 Jan 20;23:180-184. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2020.12.021. eCollection 2021 Jan-Feb. J Orthop. 2021. PMID: 33551610 Free PMC article.
-
Loading capacity of dynamic knee spacers: a comparison between hand-moulded and COPAL spacers.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Dec 21;20(1):613. doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2982-5. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019. PMID: 31864332 Free PMC article.
-
Is there a preferred articulating spacer technique for infected knee arthroplasty? A preliminary study.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Jan;470(1):228-35. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2037-1. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012. PMID: 21863391 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of dynamic and static spacers for the treatment of infections following total knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Orthop Surg Res. 2022 Jul 15;17(1):348. doi: 10.1186/s13018-022-03238-7. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022. PMID: 35840986 Free PMC article.
-
The autoclaving and re-implantation of an infected prosthesis as a spacer during resection knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.Musculoskelet Surg. 2022 Jun;106(2):111-125. doi: 10.1007/s12306-021-00722-x. Epub 2021 Jul 28. Musculoskelet Surg. 2022. PMID: 34322843 Free PMC article.
References
-
- {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'DOI', 'value': '10.1054/arth.2000.16504', 'is_inner': False, 'url': 'https://doi.org/10.1054/arth.2000.16504'}, {'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '11112192', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11112192/'}]}
- Barrack RL, Engh GA, Rorabeck C, Sawhney J, Woolfrey M (2000) Patient satisfaction and outcome after septic versus aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 15:990–993 - PubMed
-
- {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '2805496', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2805496/'}]}
- Booth RE Jr, Lotke PA (1989) The results of spacer block technique in revision of infected total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 248:57–60 - PubMed
-
- {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'DOI', 'value': '10.1126/science.284.5418.1318', 'is_inner': False, 'url': 'https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5418.1318'}, {'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '10334980', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10334980/'}]}
- Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP (1999) Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science 284:1318–1322 - PubMed
-
- {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'DOI', 'value': '10.1097/00003086-200211000-00023', 'is_inner': False, 'url': 'https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200211000-00023'}, {'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '12439251', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12439251/'}]}
- Emerson RH Jr, Muncie M, Tarbox TR, Higgins LL (2002) Comparison of a static with a mobile spacer in total knee infection. Clin Orthop 404:132–138 - PubMed
-
- {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'DOI', 'value': '10.1097/00003086-200011000-00003', 'is_inner': False, 'url': 'https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200011000-00003'}, {'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '11064968', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11064968/'}]}
- Fehring TK, Odum S, Calton TF, Mason JB (2000) Articulating versus static spacers in revision total knee arthroplasty for sepsis. Clin Orthop 380:9–16 - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical