The Effect of Time Spent with a Dynamic Spacer on Clinical and Functional Outcomes in Two-Stage Revision Knee Arthroplasty

Clinical Outcomes and Complications of 2-Stage Septic Versus Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although several studies have compared the clinical outcomes of septic and aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA), their results have been controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and complications of septic and aseptic revision TKA through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

The PubMed (MEDLINE) and Embase databases were searched for studies evaluating the clinical outcomes and complications of 2-stage septic revision and aseptic revision TKAs. A systematic review of clinical outcomes (Knee Society Knee and Function Scores and range of motion) and complications (reoperation, infection, and failure rates) was conducted.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in the systematic review. The mean MINORS (Methodological Index for NOn-Randomized Studies) score of the included studies was 20.5 (range, 18 to 22). The meta-analysis revealed higher reoperation (risk ratio [RR], 1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50 to 2.62; p < 0.00001), infection (RR, 4.08; 95% CI, 2.94 to 5.64; p < 0.00001), and failure rates (RR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.38 to 6.03; p = 0.005) in septic revision TKAs than in aseptic revision TKAs. Moreover, septic revision TKAs showed lower Knee Society Knee Scores compared with aseptic TKAs (mean difference [MD], -6.86; 95% CI, -11.80 to -1.92; p = 0.006). However, the Knee Society Function Score (MD, -1.84; 95% CI, -7.84 to 3.80; p = 0.52) and range of motion (MD, -6.96°; 95% CI, -16.23° to 2.31°; p = 0.14) were not significantly different between septic and aseptic revision TKAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the heterogeneity of prosthesis designs and surgical protocols used in septic and aseptic revision TKAs, the results of this systematic review suggest that 2-stage septic revision TKAs have poorer clinical outcomes and higher complication rates than aseptic revision TKAs do.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Interval between two-stage exchanges: what is optimal and how do you know?

BACKGROUND

Two-stage exchange arthroplasty remains the most popular option for the treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Determining infection eradication and optimal timing of reimplantation can be challenging. Information to allow for a truly informed evidence-based decision is scarce.

METHODS

We conducted a critical review of available evidence on the presently available tests to help determine timing of reimplantation.

RESULTS

Serology is traditionally used to follow up patients after the first stage. Despite tradition mandates waiting for normal inflammatory markers, there is actually no evidence that they correlate with persistent infection. The role of synovial fluid investigation between stages is also explored. Cultures lack sensitivity and neither differential leukocyte counts nor alternative biomarkers have proven to be accurate in identifying persistent infection with a spacer in situ. We also examined the evidence regarding the optimal time interval between resection and reimplantation and whether there is evidence to support the implementation of a two week "antibiotic holiday" prior to proceeding with reimplantation. Finally, wound healing and other important factors in this setting will be discussed.

CONCLUSION

Currently there are no accurate metrics to aid in the decision on the optimal timing for reimplantation. Decision must therefore rely on the resolution of clinical signs and down trending serological and synovial markers.

Are Static Spacers Superior to Articulated Spacers in the Staged Treatment of Infected Primary Knee Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In the treatment of knee periprosthetic joint infection with a two-stage protocol, static spacers allow for the local delivery of high doses of antibiotics and help to preserve soft tissue tension. Articulated spacers were introduced to better preserve flexion after the reimplantation. The aim of this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive data collection of the results of these different spacers. An in-depth search on the main clinical databases was performed concerning the studies reporting data on the topic. A total of 87 studies and 4250 spacers were included. No significant differences were found both in pooling data analysis and meta-analysis of comparative studies about infection recurrences, complications, and clinical scores. Mean active knee flexion at last follow-up after total knee reimplantation was found to be significantly higher using articulated spacers (91.6° ± 7° for static spacers vs. 100.3° ± 9.9° for articulated spacers; p < 0.001). Meta-analysis also recognized this strong significant difference (p < 0.001). This review has confirmed that articulated spacers do not appear to be inferior to static spacers regarding all clinical outcomes, while they are superior in terms of active flexion. However, the low quality of the studies and the risk for selection bias with complex patients preferentially treated with static spacers need to be accounted for.

Comparison of dynamic and static spacers for the treatment of infections following total knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Revision surgery is the most common treatment for patients who develop infection after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Two types of spacers are often used in revision surgery: dynamic spacers and static spacers. The comparative efficacy of these two types of spacers on knee prosthesis infections is not well established. Therefore, we carried out a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis with the aim of comparing the difference in efficacy between dynamic and static spacers.

Methods

We conducted the literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. The articles searched were clinical study comparing the difference in efficacy between dynamic spacers and static spacers for the treatment of prosthetic infections occurring after total knee arthroplasty.

Results

We conducted a literature search and screening based on the principles of PICOS. Ultimately, 14 relevant clinical studies were included in our current study. We use infection control rate as the primary evaluation indicator. The KSS knee scores (KSSs), KSS functional scores, bone loss and range of motion (ROM) are secondary indicators of evaluation. Thirteen of these included studies reported the infection control rates, with no significant difference between dynamic and static shims (RR: 1.03; 95% Cl 0.98, 1.09; P = 0.179 > 0.05). The KSSs were reported in 10 articles (RR: 5.98; 95% CI 0.52, 11.43; P = 0.032 < 0.05). Six articles reported the KSS functional scores (RR: 13.90; 95% CI 4.95, 22.85; P = 0.02 < 0.05). Twelve articles reported the ROM (RR: 17.23. 95% CI 10.18, 24.27; P < 0.0001). Six articles reported the bone loss (RR: 2.04; 95% CI 1.11, 3.77; P = 0.022 < 0.05).

Conclusion

Current evidence demonstrates that dynamic spacers are comparable to static spacers in controlling prosthetic joint infection. In terms of improving the functional prognosis of the knee joint, dynamic spacers are more effective than static spacers.