Abstract
Periprosthetic infection after total knee arthroplasty is a devastating complication, and two-stage exchange is the standard of care in North America. Articulating and static spacers have been developed to treat these infections but controversy exists over which method is superior. We performed a systematic review using MEDLINE and other literature search engines identifying 47 articles meeting inclusion criteria producing 2011 spacers for comparison. Articulating spacers had increased range of motion 100.1° vs. 82.9° (P<0.003), lower re-infection rate 7.5% (P<0.0031), facilitated re-implantation (P<0.0011), and developed less bone loss (P<.0001) than did static spacers. This study answers several clinically relevant questions and provides useful information in guiding clinical decision making in treating periprosthetic infection.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
