Our objective is to describe early and midterm results with the use of a new knee prosthesis as an articulating spacer in planned two-stage management for infected total knee arthroplasty. As a second objective, we compared outcomes between the group with a retained first stage and those with a completed 2-stage revision. Forty-seven patients (48 knees) from January 2012 and November 2017 underwent a 2-stage exchange with an articulating spacer with new implants was used for a chronic knee periprosthetic joint infection with a mean follow-up of 3.7 years (2–6.5 years). The most frequently identified infecting organism was MSSA (31%), MRSA (21%) or MRSE (20%). At the first stage, a new PS femoral component and a new all-polyethylene posterior stabilized (PS) tibial component or a standard PS tibial liner were cemented with antibiotic-cement, typically 3.6 gm tobramycin and vancomycin 1.5 gm. IV antibiotics for six weeks were administered. The planned reimplantation was at 3 months, but ninetteen spacers (14 all poly tibias and 5 tibial liner) were retained for over 12 months. Postoperative assessment included knee range of motion (ROM), quality of life (QOL) scores (SF-12, WOMAC, KOOS, Oxford, and UCLA scores), and a satisfaction scale from 0–100%.Introduction
Methods
Our objective is to describe our early and mid-term results with the use of a new simple primary knee prosthesis as an articulating spacer in planned two-stage management for infected knee arthroplasty. As a second objective, we compared outcomes between the group with a retained first stage and those with a complete two-stage revision. We included 47 patients (48 knees) with positive criteria for infection, with a minimum two-year follow-up, in which a two-stage approach with an articulating spacer with new implants was used. Patients with infection control, and a stable and functional knee were allowed to retain the initial first-stage components. Outcomes recorded included: infection control rate, reoperations, final range of motion (ROM), and quality of life assessment (QoL) including Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Oxford Knee Score, 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire, and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score and satisfaction score. These outcomes were evaluated and compared to additional cohorts of patients with retained first-stage interventions and those with a complete two-stage revision. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (2.0 to 6.5).Aims
Methods
The number of medial unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR) performed for arthritis has increased and as such, revisions to total knee replacement (TKR) is increasing. Previous studies have investigated survivorship of UKR to TKR revision and functional outcomes compared to TKR to TKR revision, but have failed to detail the surgical considerations involved in these revisions. Our objectives are to investigate the detailed surgical considerations involved in UKR to TKR revisions. This study is a retrospective comparative analysis of a prospectively collected database. From 2005 to 2017, 61 revisions of UKR to TKR were completed at a single center. Our inclusion criteria included: revision of UKR to TKR or TKR to TKR with minimum 1 year follow-up. Our exclusion criteria include: single component and liner revisions and revision for infection. The 61 UKR to TKR revisions were matched 2:1 with respect to age, ASA and BMI to a group of 122 TKR to TKR revisions. The following data was collected: indication for and time to revision, operative skin to skin surgical time, the use of specialized equipment (augment size/location, stem use), intraoperative and postoperative complications, re-operations and outcome scores (WOMAC, Oxford 12, SF 12, satisfaction score).Introduction
Methods
