The rate of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is approximately 1%. As the number of THAs performed each year continue to increase (550,000 by 2030), a corresponding increase in the number of hip PJI cases is likely to occur. A chronic deep infection may be treated by either chronic suppression, irrigation and debridement, single-stage exchange, or two-stage exchange. In the United States, the gold standard for chronic PJI continues to be a two-stage exchange. The benefit of an antibiotic impregnated cement is that they produce higher local concentrations of antibiotics than systemic intravenous administration. Hip spacers may be either static or articulating. Static spacers are reserved for cases of massive acetabular bone loss in which an articulating spacer is not feasible. A static spacer consists of a block of antibiotic cement in the native acetabulum and antibiotic coated rod in the femoral canal. Limb shortening, loss of soft tissue planes, and disuse osteopenia and muscle atrophy are all limitations of static spacers. In contrast, articulating spacers fulfill the goals of the interim construct during two-stage exchange which is to enhance eradication of the infecting organism through drug elution, to maintain limb length, to facilitate exposure during revision surgery, and to improve functional mobilization. Articulating spacers may be divided into three general categories based on method of spacer creation: Handmade custom spacers, prefabricated spacers, custom molded spacers (hemiarthroplasty molds and molded stem with cemented all-polyethylene cup). Handmade custom spacers are usually created with K-wire or rush rods coated with antibiotic cement. Handmade spacers are relatively simple to make, they are economical, and the amount and type of antibiotics incorporated can be customised for the infecting organism. Commercially available hemiarthroplasty spacers can be either prefabricated (Spacer G, Exactech, Gainesville. FL) or made intraoperatively (Stage One, Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN) are available in several head and stem sizes. The advantage of prefabricated spacers is that they do not require additional time to mold in the operating room. The downside of prefabricated spacers is that the antibiotic concentration and type is predetermined. A custom molded stem with cemented all-polyethylene cup can be made with off the shelf implants or used as part of a commercially available spacer (PROSTALAC, DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN). A common antibiotic/cement combination includes Tobramycin (3.6 g/40 g of cement) and vancomycin (1.5 g/40 g of cement). In all of these spacer constructs, the principles of using a high-elution cement mixed without a vacuum and with high doses of heat stable antibiotics are consistent. Tobramycin works synergistically to improve Vancomycin elution properties and is usually added in higher doses. Overall infection eradication is similar between all categories of spacers and range between 90–97%. Complications after placement of an articulating spacer are often specific to the type of spacer used. Handmade spaces that have K-wires for support are at risk for spacer cement fracture. Spacer dislocation is also a common complication in up to 15% of cases with all types of spacers. In addition, periprosthetic fractures can occur postoperatively in up to 10% of patients. Overall, despite this complication profile, articulating antibiotic spacers have excellent rates of infection eradication and offer improved mobilization in the interim two stage period and reduce operative time, complexity, and morbidity during reimplantation

Aim. The primary endpoint of this study is to characterize the progression of bone defects at the femoral and tibial side in patients who sustained PJI of the knee that underwent two-stage revision with spacer implantation. In addition, we want to analyze the differences between functional moulded and hand-made spacers. Methods. A retrospective analysis of patients that underwent two-stage revision due to PJI of the knee between January 2014 and December 2021 at our institution. Diagnosis of infection was based on the criteria of the Muscoloskeletal Infection Society. The bone defect evaluation was performed intraoperatively based on the AORI classification. The basal evaluation was performed at the time the resection arthroplasty and spacer implantation surgery. The final evaluation was performed at the second-stage surgery, at the time of spacer removal and revision implant positioning. The differences between groups were characterized by using T-test student for continuous variables, and by using chi-square for categorical variables. A p-value < 0.05 was defined as significant. Results. Complete data of 37 two-stage TKAs revision were included in the study. An articulating moulded functional spacer was used in 14 (35.9%) cases, while a hand-made spacer was used in 23 (58.9%) cases. The average length of interval period (excluding the time for patients that retained the spacer) was 146.6 days. A bone defects progression based on the AORI classification was documented in 24 cases at the femoral side (61.6%), a bone defect progression was documented in 17 cases at the tibial side (43.6%), and a bone defect at both sides was documented in 13 cases (33.3%). A statistically significant greater bone defect progression at the tibial side was observed when hand-made spacers were used. A complication during the interval period was reported in five cases (12.8%) and postoperative complication was reported in 9 cases (23.1%). Conclusions. When comparing patients in which a functional articulating spacer was used, with patients in which static spacer was used, we reported a statistically significant reduced bone defect progression during the interval period at the femoral side only when moulded spacers were used. We observed a higher incidence of bone defect progression also at the tibial and both sides when hand-made spacers were used. This is the first study that documented the bone defect progression during two-stage revision of the knee, the results observed in this study are very encouraging

Two stage exchange treatment of the infected TKA involves two separate surgical procedures separated by an interval of several weeks of pathogen specific antibiotic therapy. The first stage involves removal of all of the infected arthroplasty components and any cement or foreign material, followed by aggressive debridement of nonviable bone and soft tissues. This is followed by placement of an antibiotic-laden spacer which may be either static (molded solid PMMA block) or mobile (shaped blocks or implants that allow knee motion). With both static and mobile spacers high local doses of antibiotic are delivered from the cement in addition to systemic antibiotic therapy usually employing an IV for around 6 weeks post debridement. The choice between static and mobile spacers is dictated by surgeon preference, soft tissue status (i.e. need for adjunctive muscle flaps), and by the severity of bone loss present with static spacers more likely to be used for more major soft tissue or bone defect cases. Mobile spacers have the advantage of allowing interval motion of the knee which may improve final range of motion. Static spacers usually require adjunctive brace or cast immobilization to prevent migration and bone damage. The second stage is performed at around 6 to 8 weeks after completion of systemic antibiotic therapy and preferably after normalization (or improvement) in laboratory indicators such as ESR and CRP. Routine repeat aspiration of all knees before reimplantation is not usual, but selective aspiration for culture may be helpful if concern exists that infection may still be present due to systemic signs, wound appearance or abnormal laboratory parameters. The second stage procedure involves removal of the antibiotic-laden spacer, repeat complete debridement of the knee, and insertion of revision knee components. Frequently adjunctive stems, blocks, cones or sleeves are needed to achieve adequate implant fixation due to associated bone loss. Careful attention to soft tissue balancing is required at the time of reimplantation in order to optimise motion and function while also avoiding laxity or maltracking. Two stage exchange remains the gold standard in North America for the management of infected TKA. While this method is used by some surgeons for all chronically infected TKA patients, it is employed even by most one stage exchange devotees when the infecting organism is unknown, infection involves a highly resistant or difficult to manage pathogen (i.e. fungal), is associated with a sinus track or marginal soft tissues, or in many cases of immunocompromised patients or those with multiple comorbidities

Two-stage treatment of chronically infected TKA is the most common form of management in North America and most parts of the world. One-stage management has pros and cons which will not be discussed in this lecture. There is great variation of techniques and timing and little data to definitively support one technique or timing approach vs. another. Most methods are based on empirical success and logic. At the time of surgery, the first step is removal of infected implants. All metallic implants and cement should be removed. The most common places to leave cement behind inadvertently include patellar lug holes, femoral lug holes, and the anterior proximal tibia behind the tibial tubercle. Formal synovectomy should be performed. The next step is typically antibiotic-impregnated spacer placement. There are pros and cons of dynamic and static spacers with no clear evidence of superiority of one vs. another. Dynamic spacers work satisfactorily with mild to moderate bone loss, but more severe bone loss is usually better treated with static spacers and a cast. Most antibiotic spacers are made of methyl methacrylate cement with addition of high-dose antibiotics. In most cases, doses of 4–8 gm of antibiotics per pack of cement are preferred. The type of dosing depends on the specific antibiotic and the type of cement used. The most common antibiotics used are vancomycin and gentamycin. When the femoral canals have been instrumented, antibiotic-impregnated cement wands are usually placed in the medullary canal, as the medullary canals have been shown to have high risk of residual bacteria being present. The resection interval may vary and there is no clear evidence of a “best” resection interval. Practically speaking, most surgeons use a resection period of 8–16 weeks depending on the type of spacer utilised. During the resection interval, serum markers (ESR and CRP) are followed periodically. One anticipates a decline or normalization of these parameters prior to second stage reimplantation procedure. There has not been a demonstrated advantage to reaspiration of the knee before reimplantation in most circumstances. At the time of reimplantation, the spacers are removed and the knee is redebrided. The key at the time of reimplantation is to obtain good implant fixation but to also balance this with the potential for manageable extraction of the implants at some later date. Good implant fixation is important because failure rates due to mechanical failure are approximately equal to those of failure due to reinfection by 10 years. It is important to remember that reinfection risk is at least 10% by ten years, and therefore extractability of implants is also important. Post-operative management typically includes IV antibiotics, followed by oral antibiotics until final intra-operative cultures are available. The results of two-stage reimplantation are reported in many series. Most show approximately 85–95% rate of successful eradication of infection in the first five years. Reinfections, often with different organisms, may occur even late after reimplantation. By ten years after surgery survival free of mechanical failure and infection in most series drops to 80% or less due to recurrent infections and mechanical failures

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

At first-stage revision surgery for infection of total knee arthroplasties, antibiotic-impregnated cement spacers are frequently implanted. Two types of cement spacers are commonly used, “static” and “articulating” cement spacers. Advocates of cement spacers state that they deliver high doses of antibiotics locally, increase patient comfort, allow mobility and provide joint stability. They also minimize contracture of collateral ligaments, thereby facilitating re-implantation of a definitive prosthesis at a later stage. The use of these cement spacers, however, are not without significant complications, including patella tendon injuries. We describe a series of three patients who sustained patella tendon injuries in infected total knee arthroplasties following the use of a static cement spacer at first-stage knee revision. The patella tendon injuries resulted in significant compromise to wound healing and knee stability requiring multiple surgeries. The mid-term function was poor with an Oxford score at 24 months ranging from 12–20. Based on our experience, we advise caution in the use of static cement spacer blocks. If they are to be used, we recommend that they should be keyed in the bone to prevent patella tendon injuries

Infection after total knee arthroplasty poses formidable challenges to the surgeon. Once an infection is diagnosed, the identification of the organism and its sensitivity to antibiotics is essential. The host's healing capacity is vital. Optimisation of modifiable comorbidities, supplemental nutrition and cessation of smoking can improve wound healing. Surgical goals include debridement of necrotic tissue and elimination of the dead space. Intravenous antibiotics and a two-stage protocol are the standard of care. At our institution, the first stage is performed with an implant and antibiotic-cement composite. This articulating spacer maintains limb length and tissue compliance. The patient can maintain a functional status between stages. Definitive reconstruction is more readily accomplished with this method in contrast to the static spacer approach. The clinical efficacy of this protocol has been well documented in the literature

Introduction. Proper soft-tissue balance is important for achieving favorable clinical outcomes following TKA, as ligament imbalance can lead to pain, stiffness or instability, accelerated polyethylene wear, and premature failure of implants. Until recently, soft-tissue balancing was accomplished by subjective surgeon feel and by use of static spacer blocks. Now, nanonsensor-embedded implant trials allow surgeons to quantify peak load and center of load in the medial and lateral compartments during the procedure, and to adjust ligament tension and implant positioning accordingly. The purpose of this 3-year, multicenter study is to evaluate 500 patients who have received primary TKA with the use of intraoperative sensors in order to correlate quantified ligament balance to clinical outcomes. Methods. To date, 7 centers have contributed 215 patients who have undergone primary TKA with the use of intraoperative sensors. Patients are seen at a pre-operative visit (within 3 months prior to surgery), and post-operatively at 6 weeks, 6 months, and at 1, 2, and 3-year anniversaries. Standard demographic and surgical data is collected for each patient, including: age at time of surgery, BMI, operative side, gender, race, and primary diagnosis. At each interval, anatomic alignment and range of motion are assessed; KSS and WOMAC evaluations are administered; and a set of standard radiographs is collected, including: standing anteroposterior, standing-lateral, and the sunrise patellar view. Intraoperative loads were recorded for pre- and post-release joint states. All soft-tissue release techniques were recorded. “Optimal” soft-tissue balance was defined as a medial-lateral load difference of less than or equal to 15 lbs. Results. The average age of this cohort was 70 years: 63% are female and 37% are male, with a mean BMI of 30.6. Ninety five percent of cases had a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis. The majority of cases (72.5%) exhibited suboptimal soft-tissue balance (>15 lbs. of medial-lateral compartmental loading difference) prior to ligamentous release. Using the intraoperative sensor for guidance, 82% (p < .01) of patients were released and confirmed to exhibit a state of optimal joint balance at closure. Patient self-reported outcome scores—both KSS and WOMAC—showed significant improvement (p < .01) from the pre-operative interval to the 6-month follow-up interval. The average increase for KSS at 6 months was 60 points. Discussion. Optimized ligament balance using intraoperative sensors led to significant improvement in KSS and WOMAC scores at a 6-month follow-up interval in 215 knees. Notably, the 60-point average increase in KSS, at 6 months, is approximately 200% greater than historical data, obtained from existing literature, using traditional methods of TKA balancing. Measuring the effect of specific ligamentous releases on subsequent load and balance can potentially enable the development of release algorithms to guide surgeons to balance TKA using sensor data. Further, correlating quantifiable data on peak load and center of load to patient outcomes will help clarify what truly defines “optimum balance.” Additional study subject accrual and further longitudinal follow-up is needed to affirm the early observation that sensor-quantified soft-tissue balancing improves patient outcomes in TKA

Introduction. 47 yrs male patient had a prior history. 2005 Fx. proximal tibia (open Fx.). 2007 Metal removal. 2008 Arthroscopic debridement (2 times). He visited out hospital with severe pain and tenderness X-ray (Fig 1) and MRI (Fig 2) findings as follows. Conclusively, He had a chorinic osteomylitis of proximal tibia with soft tissue absess. 1st Surgery. I did arthroscopic debridement Arthroscopic finding shows synovitis, meniscus tear and chondromalacia. I did meticulous debridement (irrigation & curettage). 2nd Surgery. He did primary total knee arthro-plasty instead of two-stage exchange arthroplasty in may, 2010 at the another hospital. 3rd Surgery. After 7 months since he had did total knee arthroplasty, he visited to my hospital again with sudden onset of painful swelling & heating sensation. 4th Surgery. I did second stage reimplantation for infected total Knee arthroplasty after 7 weeks. Now he got a pain relief & ROM restroration. Results. Follow up 12 months X-ray showing all implants to be well-positioned and stable. Clinically, there was no implant considered to be loose. In this study, the knee society and functional scores at final follow up were 82 and 68. Conclusion. The infection after sequales of open proximal tibia fracture is treated by two-stage exchange total knee arthroplasty instead of primary total knee arthroplasty. Two-stage reimplantation of an infected total knee arthroplasty using a static antibiotic-cement spacer achieved an infection control and improvement in the clinical result 3). We use an antibiotic-loaded cement spacer(ALACS) preserved knee function between stages, resulting in effective treatment of infection, facilitation of reimplantation, and improved patient satisfaction 1). The principle surgical technique used for two-stage revision of infected total knee including: (1) exposure, (2) implant removal and debridement, and (3) construction of both static and mobile antibiotic spacers 2

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) complicates between 0.5% and 1.2% primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and may have devastating consequences. The traditional assessment of patients suffering from PJI has involved the serological study of inflammatory markers and microbiological analysis of samples obtained from the joint space. Treatment has involved debridement and revision arthroplasty performed in either one or two stages.

We present an update on the burden of PJI, strategies for its diagnosis and treatment, the challenge of resistant organisms and the need for definitive evidence to guide the treatment of PJI after THA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):27–30.