Static vs Articulating Spacers for Two-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Minimum Five-Year Review.

Abstract

BackgroundThe gold standard treatment for infected total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is two-stage revision. The first stage involves a temporary antibiotic spacer, which can be static or articulating; it remains unclear which is best. We aimed to compare 5-year outcomes between static and dynamic spacers.MethodsOne hundred and seventy-six patients with infected TKA requiring two-stage revision were enrolled. Patients were organized based on the type of spacer used during the first-stage revision. One hundred and four patients received articulating spacers, and 72 received static spacers. At 5 years, postoperative range of motion (ROM), Short Form 12 (SF-12), Knee Society Score (KSS), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were recorded. Reinfection and revisions were also tracked.ResultsEradication of infection was similar in both groups, with 83.7% in the articulating group and 86.1% in the nonarticulating spacer group (P = .234). Articulating spacers resulted in significantly improved ROM (111 vs 82 degrees, P < .001), SF-12 physical component score (35.2 vs 31.0, P = .01), KSS (145.2 vs 113.7, P < .001), and WOMAC function scores (60.1 vs 51.1, P = .03) as compared to the static spacer group.ConclusionsTreatment with an articulating spacer as opposed to a static spacer resulted in improved ROM, SF-12 physical component score, KSS, and WOMAC function scores at the final follow-up visit. There was no significant difference in reinfection rates. Patients requiring staged revision for infected TKA may benefit from an articulating spacer.