Prosthetic spacers in two-stage revision for knee periprosthetic joint infection achieve better function and similar infection control

Abstract

AimsTo explore the clinical efficacy of using two different types of articulating spacers in two-stage revision for chronic knee periprosthetic joint infection (kPJI).MethodsA retrospective cohort study of 50 chronic kPJI patients treated with two types of articulating spacers between January 2014 and March 2022 was conducted. The clinical outcomes and functional status of the different articulating spacers were compared. Overall, 17 patients were treated with prosthetic spacers (prosthetic group (PG)), and 33 patients were treated with cement spacers (cement group (CG)). The CG had a longer mean follow-up period (46.67 months (SD 26.61)) than the PG (24.82 months (SD 16.46); p = 0.001).ResultsInfection was eradicated in 45 patients overall (90%). The PG had a better knee range of motion (ROM) and Knee Society Score (KSS) after the first-stage revision (p = 0.004; p = 0.002), while both groups had similar ROMs and KSSs at the last follow-up (p = 0.136; p = 0.895). The KSS in the CG was significantly better at the last follow-up (p = 0.013), while a larger percentage (10 in 17, 58.82%) of patients in the PG chose to retain the spacer (p = 0.008).ConclusionProsthetic spacers and cement spacers are both effective at treating chronic kPJI because they encourage infection control, and the former improved knee function status between stages. For some patients, prosthetic spacers may not require reimplantation.Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(6):306–314.