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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tao, Jiasheng, Yan, Zijian, Pu, Bin, Chen, Ming, Hu, Xiaorong, Dong, Hang
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