Cargando…
Comparison of dynamic and static spacers for the treatment of infections following total knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: Revision surgery is the most common treatment for patients who develop infection after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Two types of spacers are often used in revision surgery: dynamic spacers and static spacers. The comparative efficacy of these two types of spacers on knee prosthesis inf...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9284771/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35840986 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03238-7 |
_version_ | 1784747636757102592 |
---|---|
author | Tao, Jiasheng Yan, Zijian Pu, Bin Chen, Ming Hu, Xiaorong Dong, Hang |
author_facet | Tao, Jiasheng Yan, Zijian Pu, Bin Chen, Ming Hu, Xiaorong Dong, Hang |
author_sort | Tao, Jiasheng |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Revision surgery is the most common treatment for patients who develop infection after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Two types of spacers are often used in revision surgery: dynamic spacers and static spacers. The comparative efficacy of these two types of spacers on knee prosthesis infections is not well established. Therefore, we carried out a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis with the aim of comparing the difference in efficacy between dynamic and static spacers. METHODS: We conducted the literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. The articles searched were clinical study comparing the difference in efficacy between dynamic spacers and static spacers for the treatment of prosthetic infections occurring after total knee arthroplasty. RESULTS: We conducted a literature search and screening based on the principles of PICOS. Ultimately, 14 relevant clinical studies were included in our current study. We use infection control rate as the primary evaluation indicator. The KSS knee scores (KSSs), KSS functional scores, bone loss and range of motion (ROM) are secondary indicators of evaluation. Thirteen of these included studies reported the infection control rates, with no significant difference between dynamic and static shims (RR: 1.03; 95% Cl 0.98, 1.09; P = 0.179 > 0.05). The KSSs were reported in 10 articles (RR: 5.98; 95% CI 0.52, 11.43; P = 0.032 < 0.05). Six articles reported the KSS functional scores (RR: 13.90; 95% CI 4.95, 22.85; P = 0.02 < 0.05). Twelve articles reported the ROM (RR: 17.23. 95% CI 10.18, 24.27; P < 0.0001). Six articles reported the bone loss (RR: 2.04; 95% CI 1.11, 3.77; P = 0.022 < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Current evidence demonstrates that dynamic spacers are comparable to static spacers in controlling prosthetic joint infection. In terms of improving the functional prognosis of the knee joint, dynamic spacers are more effective than static spacers. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9284771 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92847712022-07-16 Comparison of dynamic and static spacers for the treatment of infections following total knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis Tao, Jiasheng Yan, Zijian Pu, Bin Chen, Ming Hu, Xiaorong Dong, Hang J Orthop Surg Res Research BACKGROUND: Revision surgery is the most common treatment for patients who develop infection after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Two types of spacers are often used in revision surgery: dynamic spacers and static spacers. The comparative efficacy of these two types of spacers on knee prosthesis infections is not well established. Therefore, we carried out a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis with the aim of comparing the difference in efficacy between dynamic and static spacers. METHODS: We conducted the literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. The articles searched were clinical study comparing the difference in efficacy between dynamic spacers and static spacers for the treatment of prosthetic infections occurring after total knee arthroplasty. RESULTS: We conducted a literature search and screening based on the principles of PICOS. Ultimately, 14 relevant clinical studies were included in our current study. We use infection control rate as the primary evaluation indicator. The KSS knee scores (KSSs), KSS functional scores, bone loss and range of motion (ROM) are secondary indicators of evaluation. Thirteen of these included studies reported the infection control rates, with no significant difference between dynamic and static shims (RR: 1.03; 95% Cl 0.98, 1.09; P = 0.179 > 0.05). The KSSs were reported in 10 articles (RR: 5.98; 95% CI 0.52, 11.43; P = 0.032 < 0.05). Six articles reported the KSS functional scores (RR: 13.90; 95% CI 4.95, 22.85; P = 0.02 < 0.05). Twelve articles reported the ROM (RR: 17.23. 95% CI 10.18, 24.27; P < 0.0001). Six articles reported the bone loss (RR: 2.04; 95% CI 1.11, 3.77; P = 0.022 < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Current evidence demonstrates that dynamic spacers are comparable to static spacers in controlling prosthetic joint infection. In terms of improving the functional prognosis of the knee joint, dynamic spacers are more effective than static spacers. BioMed Central 2022-07-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9284771/ /pubmed/35840986 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03238-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Tao, Jiasheng Yan, Zijian Pu, Bin Chen, Ming Hu, Xiaorong Dong, Hang Comparison of dynamic and static spacers for the treatment of infections following total knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Comparison of dynamic and static spacers for the treatment of infections following total knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Comparison of dynamic and static spacers for the treatment of infections following total knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparison of dynamic and static spacers for the treatment of infections following total knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of dynamic and static spacers for the treatment of infections following total knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Comparison of dynamic and static spacers for the treatment of infections following total knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | comparison of dynamic and static spacers for the treatment of infections following total knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9284771/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35840986 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03238-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT taojiasheng comparisonofdynamicandstaticspacersforthetreatmentofinfectionsfollowingtotalkneereplacementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT yanzijian comparisonofdynamicandstaticspacersforthetreatmentofinfectionsfollowingtotalkneereplacementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT pubin comparisonofdynamicandstaticspacersforthetreatmentofinfectionsfollowingtotalkneereplacementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT chenming comparisonofdynamicandstaticspacersforthetreatmentofinfectionsfollowingtotalkneereplacementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT huxiaorong comparisonofdynamicandstaticspacersforthetreatmentofinfectionsfollowingtotalkneereplacementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT donghang comparisonofdynamicandstaticspacersforthetreatmentofinfectionsfollowingtotalkneereplacementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |