Abstract
Introduction
Knee arthrodesis is a useful limb salvage technique to maintain function in patients with complex and infected total knee arthroplasties (TKA). There are a number of commonly used external fixators, but no consensus on which of these are optimal.
The aim of this study was to synthesise the current literature to guide clinical decision making and improve patient outcomes. We systematically review the literature to compare outcomes of external fixators in arthrodesis following infected TKA.
Materials & Methods
A systematic review of the literature of primary research articles investigating the use of external fixators for knee arthrodesis after an infected TKA was conducted. Relevant articles were identified with a search strategy on online databases (EMBASE and Medline) and reviewed by two independent reviewers.
Clinical outcome measures were independently extracted by two reviewers which included union rate, infection eradication rate, complication rate, time to fusion, and time in frame.
Results
Circular frames were more likely to result in union compared to biplanar (OR 1.40 p=0.456) and monoplanar frames (OR 2.28 p=0.018). Infection recurrence was least likely in those treated by circular frames when compared to monoplanar (OR 0.12 p=0.005) and biplanar external fixators (0.41 P=0.331). Complication rates were highest in the circular fixator group, followed by the monoplanar fixator group and biplanar fixator group at 34%, 31% and 11% respectively.
Conclusions
Analysis of the available literature suggests higher union and infection eradication rates with circular frames over the other two fixation methods despite a higher complication rate. There is a paucity in the literature and therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn. Further research investigating the variations and biomechanical properties between different external fixation methods for knee arthrodesis is necessary. Further clarity in reporting and pooled data would be useful for future analysis.
