Loading capacity of dynamic knee spacers: a comparison between hand-moulded and COPAL spacers

Is the rod necessary? Biomechanical comparison of static knee spacers during axial loading

BACKGROUND

Knee Spacers are required in two-stage revision surgery of periprosthetic joint infection of the knee. Extended bone and ligamentous defects are often temporarily arthrodised via a static spacer. Regarding their weight-bearing potential and construction, there is no current consent. Our aim was to evaluate three individual static spacer variants with regard to their axial loading capacity.

METHODS

The static spacer variants were tested in a cadaver model. One after the other, a spacer with metal-reinforced rods, a spacer without metal reinforcement and a rod-less spacer were implanted and tested up to an axial loading of 1000 Newton. Target parameters were plastic deformation, stiffness and spacer movement at both the femoral and tibial surface. Loading was applied up to 1000 Newton. Radiological controls of the bone substance were performed.

FINDINGS

The spacer variants did not differ regarding deformation, stiffness or spacer movement. However, deformation increased significantly with the axial load in all spacer variants. Radiographs showed no fracture or spacer-dislocation resulting from testing.

INTERPRETATION

While the spacer reinforcement or the sheer presence of a rod did not influence the axial loading capacity in this in vitro study, weightbearing should be discouraged to limit further bone erosion.

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.

The Inverse Spacer-A Novel, Safe, and Cost-Effective Approach in Routine Procedures for Revision Knee Arthroplasty

Background: A major disadvantage of current spacers for two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (R-TKA) is the risk of (sub-) luxation during mobilization in the prosthesis-free interval, limiting their clinical success with detrimental consequences for the patient. The present study introduces a novel inverse spacer, which prevents major complications, such as spacer (sub-) luxations and/or fractures of spacer or bone. Methods: The hand-made inverse spacer consisted of convex tibial and concave femoral components of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement and was intra-operatively molded under maximum longitudinal tension in 5° flexion and 5° valgus position. Both components were equipped with a stem for rotational stability. This spacer was implanted during an R-TKA in 110 knees with diagnosed or suspected periprosthetic infection. Postoperative therapy included a straight leg brace and physiotherapist-guided, crutch-supported mobilization with full sole contact. X-rays were taken before and after prosthesis removal and re-implantation. Results: None of the patients experienced (sub-) luxations/fractures of the spacer, periprosthetic fractures, or soft tissue compromise requiring reoperation. All patients were successfully re-implanted after a prosthesis-free interval of 8 weeks, except for three patients requiring an early exchange of the spacer due to persisting infection. In these cases, the prosthetic-free interval was prolonged for one week. Conclusion: The inverse spacer in conjunction with our routine procedure is a safe and cost-effective alternative to other articulating or static spacers, and allows crutch-supported sole contact mobilization without major post-operative complications. Maximum longitudinal intra-operative tension in 5° flexion and 5° valgus position appears crucial for the success of surgery.

Embedded sensing package for temporary bone cement spacers in infected total knee arthroplasty

The re-infection rate of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) after two stage revision (15%) remains high as it can be challenging to determine whether the infection has been fully cleared between the first and second stage procedures. Temporary embedded sensor systems could be a potential solution to indicate whether the infection has been cleared. In this study a telemetric sensor system to integrate with a bone cement spacer and measure knee joint temperature was designed and evaluated. The sensor package precision, accuracy, hysteresis, and thermal equilibrium were empirically determined. Cadaveric testing was performed with the sensor package implanted inside the femoral notch alongside a pre-formed femoral and tibial bone cement spacer. The limb was tested though 30,000 cycles at 0.5 Hz under a 500 N load. Accuracy and precision of the sensing package were found to be ±0.24 °C and 0.09 °C respectively with negligible hysteresis. Thermal insulation caused by the implant itself was found to produce a thermal time constant of 263 ± 5 s, resulting in a 17 min rise time. Memory capacity enabled data logging every 20 s for a 6 week period before necessitating data transfer. Bluetooth was suitable for data transmission while the package was implanted. Following cyclic loading of the cadaveric specimen, imaging and debridement revealed no issues related to mechanical integrity of the bone cement spacer or encapsulated sensor package. While additional validation is required before use in patients, the concept of temporary embedded sensing technology to aid management of infection treatments is promising.

How I do it: 1st stage revision TKA

This article covers the key steps and decisions that we make when performing a 1st-stage revision Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) at the Avon Orthopaedic Centre and includes more detailed technique and tips regarding how we make our spacers. The first stage of a two-stage protocol should be done in a stable patient with information about the organism, and with the option of plastic surgery flap coverage if required. It should ideally be performed in the unit that is going to perform the second stage, and the operation note should document the soft-tissues, bone loss and extensor mechanism issues that will influence planning for the second stage. Nothing will make up for a bad debridement, so we focus on this as the key step for infection clearance. Infection clearance is equivalent between mobile and static spacers, but patients generally prefer having the better mobility and function of a mobile spacer. We recommend a mobile spacer, unless there is compromise to ligaments or extensor mechanism, or if bone loss is large. Whichever spacer you use, it should aim to: deliver appropriate antibiotics; allow stability, pain relief and some function and weight-bearing prior to the second stage. Doing a good technical job with the spacer is important because you do not want complications with the spacer to cause harm or necessitate a return to theatre or re-operation sooner than planned. Ideally the second stage should be performed when the surgeon & MDT team deem it appropriate clinically and when the patient is fit and ready for further surgery.