English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

At present, no consensus exists on the best spacer alternative for the management of two-stage exchange arthroplasty of infected knee arthroplasties. In this retrospective study, patient records of 24 patients, who had undergone two-stage revisions in which resterilised prosthetic components were used as spacers, were reviewed. The outcome was compared to that of operations performed during the same period (1993-2003) using cement spacers (n=10). With an average follow-up of 32 months, control of infection was achieved in 26 cases (76%), with good or excellent clinical outcome in 19 cases (56%). Treatment failed and resulted in amputation at the level of the thigh before reimplantation in one case. Three patients did not undergo reimplantation. In four cases (12%) infection relapsed. The reinfection rate did not differ between the two spacer groups. Patients treated with resterilised components had a superior range of motion during the period between the two stages. Operative time was shorter and there was less blood loss in the reimplantation arthroplasty when a prosthetic spacer was used. We consider resterilised prosthetic components a safe and effective alternative to cement spacers in the management of infected knee arthroplasties.

Spacer prostheses in two-stage revision of infected knee arthroplasty