Cruciate-Retaining vs Posterior-Stabilized Antibiotic Cement Articulating Spacers for Two-Stage Revision of Prosthetic Knee Infection: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Abstract

BackgroundAntibiotic cement articulating spacers are recommended during 2-stage revision for prosthetic knee infection because of increased range of motion (ROM) and improved function; however, spacer mechanical complications have been reported. We aimed to determine the association between different constraints of articulating spacers and the rate of complications and infection eradication, functional outcomes, and ROM. MethodsA retrospective study of prosthetic knee infection using cruciate-retaining (CR) or posterior-stabilized (PS) spacers was conducted between 2011 and 2018. The rate of spacer mechanical complications, infection eradication after reimplantation and reoperation, Hospital of Special Surgery (HSS) knee score, and ROM during the interim stage were analyzed. All patients were regularly followed up for 2 years. ResultsOne hundred forty-one patients were included, with 66 CR and 75 PS spacers. Overall mechanical complication rate was lower in PS (9.3%) than in CR spacers (45.5%) (P < .001), especially in joint dislocation (1.3% vs 30.3%, respectively, P < .001). Overall reoperation rate was lower in PS (16.0%) than in CR spacers (36.4%) (P < .001), especially for mechanical complications (1.3% vs 24.2%, respectively, P < .001). HSS knee score was higher in PS (72.3) than in CR spacers (63.8) (P < .001). ROM was greater in PS (90.3°) than in CR spacers (80.6°) (P = .005), especially at maximum flexion (102.4° vs 89.6°, respectively, P = .003). Infection eradication was comparable between the spacers. ConclusionBoth spacers can control infection; however, PS spacers had a lower rate of mechanical complications and reoperation, better HSS knee scores, and greater ROM than CR spacers.