Abstract
Purpose
Infection following total knee arthroplasty is a devastating complication, requiring considerable effort on the part of the surgeon to eradicate the infection and restore joint function. Two-stage revision is the standard of care in the treatment of peri-prosthetic infection, using a temporary antibiotic-impregnated spacer between procedures. However, controversy remains concerning the use of static versus dynamic spacers, as well as the spacer material. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and complications of two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty in patients treated with a metal-on-polyethylene articulating spacer, as compared to those treated with a static antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer at the same centre.
Method
Twenty-seven knees in patients with a mean age of 65 years (range, 40 to 80 years) were treated with two-stage revision of an infected total knee arthroplasty using a metal-on-polyethylene dynamic prosthetic spacer fixed with antibiotic-impregnated cement. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using maximum active knee range of motion, as well as modified Knee Society knee scores and incidence of re-infection at a minimum one-year follow-up. The results were compared to those achieved at similar follow-up in 10 patients treated with a static cement spacer. Demographic profile as measured by age and gender, and pre-operative Knee Society scores and range of motion were similar between the two groups.
Results
At a mean of twenty-five months following re-implantation (range, 12 to 50 months), the patients treated with dynamic spacers had significantly higher Knee Society scores (mean 93 points, range 77 to 100 points) as compared to the group treated with static spacers (mean 76 points, range 59 to 89 points; p=0.039). Additionally, mean range of motion at final follow-up was substantially higher in the patients treated with dynamic spacers (mean 102 degrees, range 60 to 120 degrees versus mean 92 degrees, range 40 to 120 degrees). There was one re-infection in the dynamic spacer group (3.7%), in a patient whos clinical course was previously complicated by subluxation of the dynamic spacer between procedures. Otherwise, no gross loosening or fractures of the dynamic spacers were noted.
Conclusion
The results of this study suggest that the use of a cemented metal-on-polyethylene dynamic prosthetic spacer at the time of two-stage revision knee arthroplasty is similarly effective in eradicating peri-prosthetic infections when compared to the use of a cemented static spacer, while providing better clinical outcomes at short-term follow-up. Additionally, this spacer design provides a degree of mobility and knee function between procedures that is unachievable with a static construct, and appears to eliminate the potential complication of spacer fracture associated with pre-formed cement implants. The authors await further data to confirm these findings at longer-term follow-up.
