Do Dynamic Cement-on-Cement Knee Spacers Provide Better Function and Activity During Two-stage Exchange?
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Implantation of an antibiotic bone cement spacer is used to treat infection of a TKA. Dynamic spacers fashioned with cement-on-cement articulating surfaces potentially facilitate patient mobility and reduce bone loss as compared with their static counterparts, while consisting of a biomaterial not traditionally used for load-bearing articulations. However, their direct impact on patient mobility and wear damage while implanted remains poorly understood.
We characterized patient activity, surface damage, and porous structure of dynamic cement-on-cement spacers.
We collected 22 dynamic and 14 static knee antibiotic cement spacers at revision surgeries at times ranging from 0.5 to 13 months from implantation. For these patients, we obtained demographic data and UCLA activity levels. We characterized surface damage using the Hood damage scoring method and used micro-CT analysis to observe the internal structure, cracking, and porosity of the cement.
The average UCLA score was higher for patients with dynamic spacers than for patients with static spacers, with no differences in BMI or age. Burnishing was the only prevalent damage mode on all the bearing surfaces. Micro-CT analysis revealed the internal structure of the spacers was porous and highly inhomogeneous, including heterogeneous dispersion of radiopaque material and cavity defects. The average porosity was 8% (range, 1%–29%) and more than ½ of the spacers had pores greater than 1 mm in diameter.
Our observations suggest dynamic, cement-on-cement spacers allow for increased patient activity without catastrophic failure. Despite the antibiotic loading and internal structural inhomogeneity, burnishing was the only prevalent damage mode that could be consistently classified with no evidence of fracture or delamination. The porous structure of the spacers varied highly across the surfaces without influencing the material failure.
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) Database Documentation. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011.
- Bishop NE, Ferguson S, Tepic S. Porosity reduction in bone cement at the cement-stem interface. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:349–356.
- Calton TF, Fehring TK, Griffin WL. Bone loss associated with the use of spacer blocks in infected total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;345:148–154. CrossRef
- Emerson RH Jr, Muncie M, Tarbox TR, Higgins LL. Comparison of a static with a mobile spacer in total knee infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;404:132–138. CrossRef
- Fehring TK, Odum S, Calton TF, Mason JB. Articulating versus static spacers in revision total knee arthroplasty for sepsis: the Ranawat Award. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;380:9–16. CrossRef
- Fink B, Rechtenbach A, Buchner H, Vogt S, Hahn M. Articulating spacers used in two-stage revision of infected hip and knee prostheses abrade with time. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:1095–1102. CrossRef
- Gooding CR, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS. Durable infection control and function with the PROSTALAC spacer in two-stage revision for infected knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:985–993. CrossRef
- Hellmann M, Mehta SD, Bishai DM, Mears SC, Zenilman JM. The estimated magnitude and direct hospital costs of prosthetic joint infections in the United States, 1997 to 2004. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:766.e1–771.e1. CrossRef
- Hofmann AA, Kane KR, Tkach TK, Plaster RL, Camargo MP. Treatment of infected total knee arthroplasty using an articulating spacer. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;321:45–54.
- Hood RW, Wright TM, Burstein AH. Retrieval analysis of total knee prostheses: a method and its application to 48 total condylar prostheses. J Biomed Mater Res. 1983;17:829–842. CrossRef
- Jamsen E, Stogiannidis I, Malmivaara A, Pajamaki J, Puolakka T, Konttinen YT. Outcome of prosthesis exchange for infected knee arthroplasty: the effect of treatment approach. Acta Orthop. 2009;80:67–77. CrossRef
- Kurtz SM, Lau E, Schmier J, Ong KL, Zhao K, Parvizi J. Infection burden for hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:984–991. CrossRef
- Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Lau E, Bozic KJ, Berry D, Parvizi J. Prosthetic joint infection risk after TKA in the Medicare population. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:52–56. CrossRef
- Maheshwari AV, Gioe TJ, Kalore NV, Cheng EY. Reinfection after prior staged reimplantation for septic total knee arthroplasty: is salvage still possible? J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(6 suppl):92–97. CrossRef
- Park SJ, Song EK, Seon JK, Yoon TR, Park GH. Comparison of static and mobile antibiotic-impregnated cement spacers for the treatment of infected total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2010;34:1181–1186. CrossRef
- Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Adeli B. Periprosthetic joint infection: treatment options. Orthopedics. 2010;33:659.
- Pitto RP, Castelli CC, Ferrari R, Munro J. Pre-formed articulating knee spacer in two-stage revision for the infected total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2005;29:305–308. CrossRef
- Pitto RP, Spika IA. Antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacers in two-stage management of infected total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2004;28:129–133. CrossRef
- Saha S, Pal S. Mechanical properties of bone cement: a review. J Biomed Mater Res. 1984;18:435–462. CrossRef
- Van Thiel GS, Berend KR, Klein GR, Gordon AC, Lombardi AV, Della Valle CJ. Intraoperative molds to create an articulating spacer for the infected knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:994–1001. CrossRef
- Villa T, Carnelli D. Experimental evaluation of the biomechanical performances of a PMMA-based knee spacer. Knee. 2007;14:145–153. CrossRef
- Yamamoto K, Miyagawa N, Masaoka T, Katori Y, Shishido T, Imakiire A. Cement spacer loaded with antibiotics for infected implants of the hip joint. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:83–89. CrossRef
- Do Dynamic Cement-on-Cement Knee Spacers Provide Better Function and Activity During Two-stage Exchange?
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®
Volume 470, Issue 9 , pp 2599-2604
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Implant Research Center, School of Biomedical Engineering, Science, and Heath Systems, Drexel University, 3401 Market Street, Suite 300, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
- 2. Exponent, Inc, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- 3. Hartzband Center, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USA
- 4. Rothman Institute at Jefferson, Philadelphia, PA, USA