HOMEPRODUCTSCOMPANYCONTACTFAQResearchDictionaryPharmaSign Up FREE or Login

Comparing the Efficacy of Articulating Spacer Constructs for Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infection Eradication: All-Cement vs Real-Component Spacers.

AbstractBACKGROUND:
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.
AuthorsMackenzie A Roof, Jessica L Baylor, Jenna A Bernstein, Brielle J Antonelli, David N Kugelman, Alexander J Egol, Christopher M Melnic, Antonia F Chen, William J Long, Vinay K Aggarwal, Ran Schwarzkopf
JournalThe Journal of arthroplasty (J Arthroplasty) Vol. 36 Issue 7S Pg. S320-S327 (07 2021) ISSN: 1532-8406 [Electronic] United States
PMID33579629 (Publication Type: Journal Article, Observational Study)
CopyrightCopyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Chemical References
  • Anti-Bacterial Agents
Topics
  • Anti-Bacterial Agents (therapeutic use)
  • Humans
  • Knee Joint
  • Knee Prosthesis (adverse effects)
  • Prosthesis-Related Infections (drug therapy, epidemiology, surgery)
  • Reoperation
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Treatment Outcome

Join CureHunter, for free Research Interface BASIC access!

Take advantage of free CureHunter research engine access to explore the best drug and treatment options for any disease. Find out why thousands of doctors, pharma researchers and patient activists around the world use CureHunter every day.
Realize the full power of the drug-disease research graph!


Choose Username:
Email:
Password:
Verify Password:
Enter Code Shown: