Comparison of infection eradication rate of using articulating spacers containing bio-inert materials versus all-cement articulating spacers in revision of infected TKA: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 45 Downloads
To assess the infection eradication rate when using two types of articulating spacers (prosthetic articulating spacers and all-cement articulating spacers) in two-stage revision of infected total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases and performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective comparative studies assessing two types of articulating spacers. A quality assessment of the included studies was performed following the STROBE statement.
Thirty retrospective studies, including a total of 821 knees, were identified. The pooled infection control rates in stage I were as follows: 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.00) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96 to 0.99) for the prosthetic articulating spacer group and all-cement articulating spacer group, respectively. The pooled postoperative reinfection rate was 0.05 (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.08) for the prosthetic spacer group and 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.06) for the all-cement spacer group. Results of the subgroup analyses showed that the weight of the antibiotic cement, antibiotic type, mean period of spacers in situ, postoperative antibiotic treatment period, and postoperative antibiotic treatment approach had no effect on the reinfection rates (p < 0.05).
Compared to all-cement articulating spacers, articulating spacers containing bio-inert materials have a similar infection control rate but a higher postoperative reinfection rate. Although the 95% CIs of reinfection rates in the two groups overlapped, our results indicate that articulating spacers containing bio-inert materials may be associated with higher reinfection rates and poorer clinical outcomes than all-cement articulating spacers.
KeywordsTotal knee arthroplasty Total knee replacement Revision TKA Periprosthetic infection Articulating spacer Bio-inert material
We acknowledge Professor Jing Tian for selecting the topic and offering valuable suggestions. His instruction was a great help for the completion of our study.
There is no funding source.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 3.Charette RS, Melnic CM (2018) Two-stage revision arthroplasty for the treatment of prosthetic joint infection. Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine 11(3):332–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-018-9495-y
- 4.Chang MJ, Song MK, Shin JH, Yoon C, Chang CB, Kang SB (2018) Two-stage approach to total knee arthroplasty using colistin-loaded articulating cement spacer for vancomycin-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in an arthritic knee. Eur J Orthopaedic Surg Traumatol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-018-2268-x Google Scholar
- 7.Ding H, Yao J, Chang W, Liu F (2017) Comparison of the efficacy of static versus articular spacers in two-stage revision surgery for the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 12(1):151. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-017-0644-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Emerson RH Jr, Muncie M, Tarbox TR, Higgins LL (2002) Comparison of a static with a mobile spacer in total knee infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res (404):132–138Google Scholar
- 13.von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S (2007) Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 335(7624):806–808. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Brunnekreef J, Hannink G, Malefijt Mde W (2013) Recovery of knee mobility after a static or mobile spacer in total knee infection. Acta Orthop Belg 79(1):83–89Google Scholar
- 23.Ha CW (2006) A technique for intraoperative construction of antibiotic spacers. Clin Orthop Relat Res 445:204–209. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000201161.52196.c5 Google Scholar
- 24.Hofmann AA, Goldberg T, Tanner AM, Kurtin SM (2005) Treatment of infected total knee arthroplasty using an articulating spacer: 2- to 12-year experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res (430):125–131Google Scholar
- 28.Jia YT, Zhang Y, Ding C, Zhang N, Zhang DL, Sun ZH, Tian MQ, Liu J (2012) Antibiotic-loaded articulating cement spacers in two-stage revision for infected total knee arthroplasty: individual antibiotic treatment and early results of 21 cases. Chin J Traumatol 15(4):212–221Google Scholar
- 31.Lee BJ, Kyung HS, Yoon SD (2015) Two-stage revision for infected total knee arthroplasty: based on autoclaving the recycled femoral component and intraoperative molding using antibiotic-impregnated cement on the tibial side. Clin Orthop Surg 7(3):310–317. https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2015.7.3.310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.Evans RP (2004) Successful treatment of total hip and knee infection with articulating antibiotic components: a modified treatment method. Clin Orthop Relat Res (427):37–46Google Scholar
- 47.Hoell S, Moeller A, Gosheger G, Hardes J, Dieckmann R, Schulz D (2016) Two-stage revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infections: What is the value of cultures and white cell count in synovial fluid and CRP in serum before second stage reimplantation? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136(4):447–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2404-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 48.Hofmann AA, Kane KR, Tkach TK, Plaster RL, Camargo MP (1995) Treatment of infected total knee arthroplasty using an articulating spacer. Clin Orthop Relat Res (321):45–54Google Scholar