학술논문
Static spacers play a crucial role in the treatment of complex periprosthetic joint infections of the knee.
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Lunz A; Department of Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.; Omlor GW; Department of Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.; Center for Orthopedics and Joint Replacement, Marienhaus Hospital St. Wendel-Ottweiler, St. Wendel, Germany.; Voss MN; Department of Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.; Geisbüsch A; Department of Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.; Renkawitz T; Department of Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.; Lehner B; Department of Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Source
Publisher: Wiley Country of Publication: Germany NLM ID: 9314730 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1433-7347 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 09422056 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Subsets: MEDLINE
Subject
Language
English
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the superior spacer design, a growing number of studies are comparing treatment results between patients having been treated with articulating and static knee spacers in the setting of two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). In contrast, the primary objective of this study was to compare preoperative characteristics between patients from both spacer groups and examine whether significant differences were present prior to spacer implantation.
Methods: This retrospective, single-centre, cohort study examined the preoperative situation of 80 consecutive knee PJIs between 2017 and 2020. All patients underwent two-stage revision, with 35 (44%) receiving an articulating and 45 (56%) a static spacer.
Results: No significant differences were observed in terms of patient gender (p = 0.083), age (p = 0.666), comorbidity (p = 0.1) and preoperative clinical function (p = 0.246). Static spacers were significantly more often used in the presence of a periarticular fistula (p = 0.033), infection of a revision implant (p < 0.001), higher degree of bone loss (p < 0.001) and infection caused by a difficult-to-treat pathogen (p = 0.038). Complication and revision rates were similar for both spacer types during the interim period, while patients with articulating spacers demonstrated a superior clinical function (p < 0.001) during the interim period and after reimplantation.
Conclusion: Static spacers are being utilised in significantly more complex and unfavourable preoperative scenarios. Therefore, a preoperative selection bias may be at least partially accountable for any disparities observed in postoperative outcomes. To achieve the best possible results, surgeons should know and respect the distinct indications of static and articulating spacers and consequently understand and use them as complementary surgical options.
Level of Evidence: Level III.
(© 2024 The Authors. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy.)
Methods: This retrospective, single-centre, cohort study examined the preoperative situation of 80 consecutive knee PJIs between 2017 and 2020. All patients underwent two-stage revision, with 35 (44%) receiving an articulating and 45 (56%) a static spacer.
Results: No significant differences were observed in terms of patient gender (p = 0.083), age (p = 0.666), comorbidity (p = 0.1) and preoperative clinical function (p = 0.246). Static spacers were significantly more often used in the presence of a periarticular fistula (p = 0.033), infection of a revision implant (p < 0.001), higher degree of bone loss (p < 0.001) and infection caused by a difficult-to-treat pathogen (p = 0.038). Complication and revision rates were similar for both spacer types during the interim period, while patients with articulating spacers demonstrated a superior clinical function (p < 0.001) during the interim period and after reimplantation.
Conclusion: Static spacers are being utilised in significantly more complex and unfavourable preoperative scenarios. Therefore, a preoperative selection bias may be at least partially accountable for any disparities observed in postoperative outcomes. To achieve the best possible results, surgeons should know and respect the distinct indications of static and articulating spacers and consequently understand and use them as complementary surgical options.
Level of Evidence: Level III.
(© 2024 The Authors. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy.)