Comparison of Static and Articulating Spacers After Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

INTRODUCTION

There is no consensus on whether articulating or static spacers are superior during two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection. We aimed to compare surgical time, need for extensile exposure, surgical costs, and treatment success for articulating and static spacers.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of 229 periprosthetic joint infections treated with two-stage exchange with a minimum of one-year follow-up. For articulating and static spacers, we compared the need for extensile exposure during reimplantation and treatment failure based on an updated definition. Surgical time and costs at both stages were also compared. Subgroup analysis was performed for total knee and hip arthroplasties.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the surgical time for spacer insertion; however, articulating spacers demonstrated reduced surgical time during reimplantation (181 vs. 234 minutes, P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, there was no difference in extensile exposures (odds ratio 2.20, P = 0.081), but treatment failure was more likely for static spacers (odds ratio 2.17, P = 0.009). Overall surgical costs for two-stage exchange were similar between groups (23,782 vs. 23,766, P = 0.495).

CONCLUSION

Articulating spacers demonstrated shorter surgical times and a trend toward decreased extensile exposures during reimplantation. They also had higher treatment success rates and similar surgical costs for overall two-stage exchange.