Functional advantage of articulating versus static spacers in 2-stage revision for total knee arthroplasty infection

J Arthroplasty. 2007 Dec;22(8):1116-21. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.04.009.

Abstract

Infection is an unfortunate complication of total knee arthroplasty. Current literature supports 2-stage reimplantation as the gold standard. Controversy exists whether static or articulating spacers are the best interim treatment method. Seventy-six 2-stage reimplantation procedures met the study inclusion criteria. There were 28 static spacers and 48 articulating spacers. The eradication rate was 94.7% in the articulating group compared with 92.1% in the static group (P = 0.7). There were no significant differences in postoperative Knee Society Scores pain scores. There were 28 (58%) good to excellent function scores in the articulating group and 10 (36%) in the static group (P = .05). Interim use of an articulating spacer maintains excellent infection eradication rates and may improve function over the use of static spacers.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Prosthesis-Related Infections / surgery*
  • Reoperation / instrumentation
  • Reoperation / methods*