Dataset Information

Static vs Articulating Spacers for Two-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Minimum Five-Year Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The gold standard treatment for infected total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is two-stage revision. The first stage involves a temporary antibiotic spacer, which can be static or articulating; it remains unclear which is best. We aimed to compare 5-year outcomes between static and dynamic spacers.

Methods

One hundred and seventy-six patients with infected TKA requiring two-stage revision were enrolled. Patients were organized based on the type of spacer used during the first-stage revision. One hundred and four patients received articulating spacers, and 72 received static spacers. At 5 years, postoperative range of motion (ROM), Short Form 12 (SF-12), Knee Society Score (KSS), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were recorded. Reinfection and revisions were also tracked.

Results

Eradication of infection was similar in both groups, with 83.7% in the articulating group and 86.1% in the nonarticulating spacer group (P = .234). Articulating spacers resulted in significantly improved ROM (111 vs 82 degrees, P < .001), SF-12 physical component score (35.2 vs 31.0, P = .01), KSS (145.2 vs 113.7, P < .001), and WOMAC function scores (60.1 vs 51.1, P = .03) as compared to the static spacer group.

Conclusions

Treatment with an articulating spacer as opposed to a static spacer resulted in improved ROM, SF-12 physical component score, KSS, and WOMAC function scores at the final follow-up visit. There was no significant difference in reinfection rates. Patients requiring staged revision for infected TKA may benefit from an articulating spacer.

SUBMITTER: Vasarhelyi E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8783104 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The study of localized immune-related factors has proven beneficial for a variety of conditions, and one area of interest in the field of orthopaedics is the impact of implants and localized infections on immune response. Several cytokines have shown increased systemic concentrations (in serum/plasma) in response to implants and infection, but tissue-level cytokines have not been investigated as thoroughly. METHODS:This exploratory study investigated tissue-level cytokines in a cohort of patients (N?=?17) in response to total knee arthroplasty and total knee revision to better understand the immune response to implants and localized infection (e.g., prosthetic joint infection). The overall goal of this study was to provide insight into the localized cytokine response of tissues and identify tissue-level markers specific to inflammation caused by implants vs. inflammation caused by infection. Tissues were collected across several anatomical locations and assayed with a panel of 20 human inflammatory cytokines to understand spatial differences in cytokine levels. RESULTS:In this study, six cytokines were elevated in implanted joints, as compared to native joints: IL-10, IL-12p70, IL-13, IL-17A, IL-4, and TNF-? (p?<?0.05). Seven cytokines showed infection-dependent increases in localized tissues: IL-1?, IL-1?, IL-6, IL-8, MCP-1, MIP-1?, and MIP-1? (p?<?0.05). CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrated that differences exist in tissue-level cytokines in response to presence of implant, and some cytokines were specifically elevated for infection; these responses may be informative of overall tissue health. These results highlight the utility of investigating localized cytokine concentrations to offer novel insights for total knee arthroplasty and total knee revision procedures, as well as their complications. Ultimately, this information could provide additional, quantitative measurements of tissue to aid clinical decision making and patient treatment options.

Project description:There is debate in the literature whether rotating hinge knee (RHK) or constrained condylar knee (CCK) prostheses lead to better clinical outcomes and survival rates in patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the survivorship and clinical outcomes of RHK and CCK prostheses. In this meta-analysis, we reviewed studies that evaluated pain and function scores, range of motion (ROM), complications, and survival rates in patients treated with RHK or CCK with short-term (<5 years) or midterm (5-10 years) follow-up. The survivorship was considered as the time to additional surgical intervention such as removal or revision of the components. A total of 12 studies (one randomized study and 11 non-randomized studies) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail. The proportion of the knees in which short-term (<5 years) survival rates (RHK, 83/95; CCK, 111/148; odds ratio [OR] 0.52; 95% CI, 0.24-1.11; P = 0.09) and midterm (5-10 years) survival rates (RHK, 104/128; CCK, 196/234; OR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.56-1.97; P = 0.88) were evaluated did not differ significantly between RHK and CCK prostheses. In addition, there were no significant differences in ROM (95% CI: -0.40 to 9.93; P = 0.07) and complication rates (95% CI: 0.66 to 2.49; P = 0.46). In contrast, CCK groups reported significantly better pain score (95% CI: 0.50 to 2.73; P = 0.005) and function score (95% CI: 0.01 to 2.00; P = 0.05) than RHK groups. This meta-analysis revealed that 87.4% of RHK and 75.0% of CCK prostheses survive at short-term (<5 years), while 81.3% of RHK and 83.8% of CCK prostheses survive at midterm (5-10 years). The differences in standardized mean pain and function scores we detected were likely to be imperceptible to patients and almost certainly below the minimum clinically important level, despite a significant difference in both groups. Based on the findings of the current meta-analysis, RHK prostheses continue to be an option in complex RTKA with reasonable midterm survivorship.