Functional advantage of articulating versus static spacers in 2-stage revision for total knee arthroplasty infection.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 18078879.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
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.
Medical subject headings
- Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee
- Prosthesis-Related Infections
- Reoperation
Anatomy
- knee