Intraoperative molds to create an articulating spacer for the infected knee arthroplasty

Rush University Medical Center, 1611 West Harrison Street, Suite 300, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (Impact Factor: 2.88). 11/2010; 469(4):994-1001. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1644-6
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Chronic infections in TKA have been traditionally treated with a two-stage protocol incorporating a temporary antibiotic-loaded cement spacer. The use of a static as opposed to an articulating spacer is controversial. Some surgeons believe a static spacer results in a higher rate of infection eradication, whereas others believe an articulating spacer provides equivalent rates of infection control with improved function between stages and the potential for better eventual range of motion.
We determined the rates of infection control and postoperative function for an articulating all-cement antibiotic spacer fashioned intraoperatively from prefabricated silicone molds.
We retrospectively reviewed 60 patients with an infected TKA using the same cement-on-cement articulating spacer. A minimum of 4 g antibiotic per package of cement was used when making the spacer. Complications and pre- and postoperative knee flexion, extension, and Knee Society scores were recorded. Bone loss associated with the spacer was determined radiographically and by intraoperative inspection of the bony surfaces at the second stage. Minimum followup was 24 months (mean, 35 months; range, 24-51 months).
Seven patients (12%) became reinfected, four with an organism different from that identified at the index resection arthroplasty. One spacer femoral component broke between stages but did not require any specific treatment. We identified no bone loss between stages and no complications related to the cement-on-cement articulation. The mean pretreatment Knee Society scores of 53 improved to 79. The mean preoperative flexion of 90.6º improved to 101.3º at final followup.
An articulating antibiotic spacer was associated with control of a deep periprosthetic infection in 88% of patients while allowing range of motion between stages.
Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

  • Source
    • "The gold standard for treating chronic periprosthetic infection is based on a two-stage protocol, including initial explantation of the infected components, adequate debridement , and antibiotic cement spacer prostheses implantation with systemic antibiotic therapy followed by secondary TKA once the optimal condition is achieved [13] [14]. The antimicrobial-impregnated spacer utilized in this process allows for maintenance of limb length, partial mobility during the recovery process, and infection control rates of 91% to 100% [15] [16]. Initially, cement spacers were static, therefore not providing sufficient range of motion (ROM); bone loss, soft tissue contracture, and increased scar tissue formation as a result have been mentioned [17] [18] [19]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. Periprosthetic infections remain a devastating problem in the field of joint arthroplasty. In the following study, the results of a two-stage treatment protocol for chronic periprosthetic infections using an intraoperatively molded cement prosthesis-like spacer (CPLS) are presented. Methods. Seventy-five patients with chronically infected knee prosthesis received a two-stage revision procedure with the newly developed CPLS between June 2006 and June 2011. Based on the microorganism involved, patients were grouped into either easy to treat (ETT) or difficult to treat (DTT) and treated accordingly. Range of motion (ROM) and the knee society score (KSS) were utilized for functional assessment. Results. Mean duration of the CPLS implant in the DTT group was 3.6 months (range 3-5 months) and in the ETT group 1.3 months (range 0.7-2.5 months). Reinfection rates of the final prosthesis were 9.6% in the ETT and 8.3% in the DTT group with no significant difference between both groups regarding ROM or KSS (P = 0.87, 0.64, resp.). Conclusion. The results show that ETT patients do not necessitate the same treatment protocol as DTT patients to achieve the same goal, emphasizing the need to differentiate between therapeutic regimes. We also highlight the feasibility of CLPS in two-stage protocols.
    The Scientific World Journal 09/2013; 2013:763434. DOI:10.1155/2013/763434 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Deep infections are devastating complications of TKA often treated with component explantation, intravenous antibiotics, and antibiotic-impregnated cement spacers. Historically, the spacers have been static, which may limit patients' ROM and ability to walk. Several recent reports describe dynamic spacers, which may allow for improved ROM and make later reimplantation easier. However, because of several dynamic spacer problems noted at our institution, we wanted to assess their associated failures, reinfection rates, and functionality. We therefore asked whether there were differences between static and dynamic spacers in (1) reinfection rates, (2) complications directly related to the spacer, and (3) final patient functionality as measured by Knee Society objective scores and ROM. We retrospectively identified 111 patients (115 knees) with 34 dynamic spacers (30%) and 81 static spacers (70%). Reinfection rates, complications requiring additional surgery, and final Knee Society scores and ROM were collected for all patients. Reinfection rates were comparable between groups. In the dynamic spacer cohort, there were four complications; however, these could all be explained by surgical technical errors or patient weightbearing compliance. All patients with failed results eventually underwent successful two-stage exchange arthroplasty. Final Knee Society scores and ROM were also similar between groups. Reinfection rates, Knee Society scores, and ROM were comparable between the static and dynamic spacer groups. Meticulous surgical technique and proper patient selection should be used to avoid any complications with any spacers.
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 09/2011; 470(1):220-7. DOI:10.1007/s11999-011-2095-4 · 2.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: The best method for treating chronic periprosthetic knee infection remains controversial. Randomized, comparative studies on treatment modalities are lacking. This systematic review of the literature compares the infection eradication rate after two-stage versus one-stage revision and static versus articulating spacers in two-stage procedures. METHODS: We reviewed full-text papers and those with an abstract in English published from 1966 through 2011 that reported the success rate of infection eradication after one-stage or two-stage revision with two different types of spacers. RESULTS: In all, 6 original articles reporting the results after one-stage knee exchange arthoplasty (n = 204) and 38 papers reporting on two-stage revision (n = 1,421) were reviewed. The average success rate in the eradication of infection was 89.8% after a two-stage revision and 81.9% after a one-stage procedure at a mean follow-up of 44.7 and 40.7 months, respectively. The average infection eradication rate after a two-stage procedure was slightly, although significantly, higher when an articulating spacer rather than a static spacer was used (91.2 versus 87%). CONCLUSIONS: The methodological limitations of this study and the heterogeneous material in the studies reviewed notwithstanding, this systematic review shows that, on average, a two-stage procedure is associated with a higher rate of eradication of infection than one-stage revision for septic knee prosthesis and that articulating spacers are associated with a lower recurrence of infection than static spacers at a comparable mean duration of follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
    Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy 01/2012; 20(12). DOI:10.1007/s00167-012-1885-x · 2.84 Impact Factor
Show more


Available from