Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, 2 Silverstein, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Sep 4;95(17):1594-9. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.01461.
The so-called gold standard for treatment of periprosthetic joint infection following total knee arthroplasty is two-stage reimplantation. However, it is unclear whether use of static or articulating antibiotic-impregnated spacers during the interim period between these two stages is superior. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of static and articulating spacers in the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty.
A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature indexed by MEDLINE and Embase was performed to identify studies reporting the outcomes of antibiotic spacers in the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty. Seven Level-III comparative studies and thirty-two Level-IV case series remained following the screening process. The data in these studies were extracted and aggregated to compare the reinfection rate, range of knee motion, functional scores, and complication rates between static and articulating spacers.
The two types of spacers demonstrated similar reinfection rates (7% for articulating and 12% for static, p = 0.2). However, the articulating spacers resulted in significantly greater range of knee motion after reimplantation (101° for articulating and 91° for static, p = 0.0002). Despite this difference in ultimate knee motion, functional scores in the treatment groups were similar. Rates of wound-related and spacer-related complications were similarly low with both types of spacers.
Our review failed to identify a significant difference in the ability of static or articulating spacers to eradicate periprosthetic infection following total knee arthroplasty. Compared with static spacers, articulating spacers provided improved knee motion following reimplantation, although functional scores were similar in the two treatment groups. We encourage arthroplasty surgeons to consider both static and articulating spacers in the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty and to tailor treatment on the basis of patient-related factors.
治疗全膝关节置换术后假体周围关节感染的所谓金标准是两期再植入。然而,在这两个阶段之间的间隔期间使用静态或活动式抗生素浸渍间隔物是否更优尚不清楚。本研究的目的是比较全膝关节置换术后感染治疗中使用静态和活动式间隔物的结果。
对 MEDLINE 和 Embase 索引的同行评审文献进行系统回顾,以确定报告抗生素间隔物治疗全膝关节置换术后感染结果的研究。经过筛选后,仍有 7 项 III 级比较研究和 32 项 IV 级病例系列研究。从这些研究中提取并汇总数据,以比较静态和活动式间隔物的再感染率、膝关节活动范围、功能评分和并发症发生率。
两种类型的间隔物的再感染率相似(活动式为 7%,静态式为 12%,p = 0.2)。然而,活动式间隔物在再植入后膝关节活动范围明显更大(活动式为 101°,静态式为 91°,p = 0.0002)。尽管最终膝关节运动存在这种差异,但治疗组的功能评分相似。两种类型的间隔物的伤口相关和间隔物相关并发症发生率均相似较低。
我们的综述未能确定静态或活动式间隔物在全膝关节置换术后清除假体周围感染方面的能力有显著差异。与静态间隔物相比,活动式间隔物在再植入后提供了更好的膝关节运动,但两组治疗组的功能评分相似。我们鼓励关节置换外科医生在全膝关节置换术后感染的治疗中考虑使用静态和活动式间隔物,并根据患者相关因素制定治疗方案。