These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Implants as Functional Prosthetic Spacers for Definitive Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Multicenter Study.
    Author: Siddiqi A, Nace J, George NE, Buxbaum EJ, Ong AC, Orozco FR, Ponzio DY, Post ZD.
    Journal: J Arthroplasty; 2019 Dec; 34(12):3040-3047. PubMed ID: 31378510.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the utility of a standard primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) femoral component with an all polyethylene tibia as a functional prosthetic spacer in place of a conventional all cement spacer for the management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The aim of this multicenter study was to retrospectively review (1) ultimate treatment success; (2) reimplantation rates; (3) reoperation rates; and (4) change in knee range of motion in patients managed with functional prosthetic spacers following TKA PJI. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for patients at 2 tertiary care centers who underwent a functional prosthetic spacer implantation as part of a functional single-stage (n = 57) or all cement spacer conventional two-stage (n = 137) revision arthroplasty protocol over a 5-year period. Outcomes including reinfection, reimplantation, and reoperation rates, success rate as defined by the Delphi criteria, and final range of motion were compared between the 2 cohorts at a minimum of 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in reinfection (14.0 vs 24.1%), reoperation (19.3 vs 27.7%), or success rates (78.9 vs 70.8%; P > .05 for all) between the one-stage and two-stage revision TKA cohorts. Mean final total arc of motion was also similar between the 2 groups (105.8 vs 101.8 degrees, respectively). CONCLUSION: Functional prosthetic spacers offer the advantage of a single procedure with decreased overall hospitalization and improved cost-effectiveness with analogous success rates (78.9%) compared with two-stage exchange (70.8%) at mid-term follow-up. Although long-term data are required to determine its longevity and efficacy, the outcomes in this study are encouraging. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]