The use of spacers (static and mobile) in infection knee arthroplasty

被引：42
作者：
Mazzucchelli L. [1 ]
Rosso F. [1 ]
Marmotti A. [1 ]
Bonasia D.E. [1 ]
Bruzzone M. [1 ]
Rossi R. [1 ]
机构：
[1] Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Osp. Mauriziano, Largo Turati, 62, Torino
来源：
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine | 2015年 / 8卷 / 4期
关键词：
Cement; Infection; Revision total knee arthroplasty; Spacer; Treatment;
D O I：
10.1007/s12178-015-9293-8
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the treatment of choice in patients with periprosthetic joint infection. It may be performed in either a single stage or two stages. In the latter option, between stages, an antibiotic-loaded spacer may be used to maintain a certain amount of joint stability and mobility after the infected implant is removed, adding an intra-articular concentration of antibiotics. There are two types of antibiotic-loaded cement spacers: static and dynamic. Static spacers basically create a temporary arthrodesis with antibiotic-loaded cement and usually are handmade within the surgical field. Dynamic spacers can be created intraoperatively by using different tools or may be prepackaged by the manufacturer; they allow range of motion between stages. In this article, the authors review the indications, surgical techniques, and results for static and dynamic spacers in two-stage revision TKA. © 2015, Springer Science+Business Media New York.
引用
收藏
页码：373 / 382
页数：9
相关论文
共 89 条
[1]  
Parvizi J., Adeli B., Zmistowski B., Restrepo C., Greenwald A.S., Management of periprosthetic joint infection: the current knowledge: AAOS exhibit selection, J Bone Joint Surg (Am Vol), 94, (2012)
[2]  
Bozic K.J., Kurtz S.M., Lau E., Ong K., Chiu V., Vail T.P., Et al., The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States, Clin Orthop Relat Res, 468, pp. 45-51, (2010)
[3]  
Parvizi J., Zmistowski B., Berbari E.F., Bauer T.W., Springer B.D., Della Valle C.J., Et al., New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society, Clin Orthop Relat Res, 469, pp. 2992-2994, (2011)
[4]  
New definition for periprosthetic joint infection, The Journal of arthroplasty, 26, pp. 1136-1138, (2011)
[5]  
Della Valle C., Parvizi J., Bauer T.W., DiCesare P.E., Evans R.P., Segreti J., Et al., American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guideline on: the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip and knee, J Bone Joint Surg (Am Vol), 93, pp. 1355-1357, (2011)
[6]  
Lombardi A.V., Berend K.R., Adams J.B., Why knee replacements fail in 2013: patient, surgeon, or implant?, J Bone Joint, 96-B, pp. 101-104, (2014)
[7]  
Oduwole K.O., Molony D.C., Walls R.J., Bashir S.P., Mulhall K.J., Increasing financial burden of revision total knee arthroplasty, Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 18, pp. 945-948, (2010)
[8]  
Jamsen E., Stogiannidis I., Malmivaara A., Pajamaki J., Puolakka T., Konttinen Y.T., Outcome of prosthesis exchange for infected knee arthroplasty: the effect of treatment approach, Acta Orthop, 80, pp. 67-77, (2009)
[9]  
Oussedik S.I., Dodd M.B., Haddad F.S., Outcomes of revision total hip replacement for infection after grading according to a standard protocol, J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol, 92, pp. 1222-1226, (2010)
[10]  
Singer J., Merz A., Frommelt L., Fink B., High rate of infection control with one-stage revision of septic knee prostheses excluding MRSA and MRSE, Clin Orthop Relat Res, 470, pp. 1461-1471, (2012)
123456789