CoxaPro
> Clinical Library > Tervetuloa Clinical Libraryyn > Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Implants as Functional Prosthetic Spacers for Definitive Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Multicenter Study
The Journal of Arthroplasty, Volume 34, Issue 12, 3040 - 3047
Knee
Link to article
Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Implants as Functional Prosthetic Spacers for Definitive Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Multicenter Study
Siddiqi, Ahmed et al.Knee
Background
There are limited data on the utility of a standard primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) femoral component with an all polyethylene tibia as a functional prosthetic spacer in place of a conventional all cement spacer for the management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The aim of this multicenter study was to retrospectively review (1) ultimate treatment success; (2) reimplantation rates; (3) reoperation rates; and (4) change in knee range of motion in patients managed with functional prosthetic spacers following TKA PJI.
Methods
A retrospective review was performed for patients at 2 tertiary care centers who underwent a functional prosthetic spacer implantation as part of a functional single-stage (n = 57) or all cement spacer conventional two-stage (n = 137) revision arthroplasty protocol over a 5-year period. Outcomes including reinfection, reimplantation, and reoperation rates, success rate as defined by the Delphi criteria, and final range of motion were compared between the 2 cohorts at a minimum of 2-year follow-up.
Results
There was no significant difference in reinfection (14.0 vs 24.1%), reoperation (19.3 vs 27.7%), or success rates (78.9 vs 70.8%; P > .05 for all) between the one-stage and two-stage revision TKA cohorts. Mean final total arc of motion was also similar between the 2 groups (105.8 vs 101.8 degrees, respectively).
Conclusion
Functional prosthetic spacers offer the advantage of a single procedure with decreased overall hospitalization and improved cost-effectiveness with analogous success rates (78.9%) compared with two-stage exchange (70.8%) at mid-term follow-up. Although long-term data are required to determine its longevity and efficacy, the outcomes in this study are encouraging.
Level of Evidence
3.
Link to article