Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 17, 2026
Author Spotlight: Advancing Research on Candida albicans Biofilm-Associated Prosthetic Joint Infections
Published on: February 2, 2024
[Dynamic versus static cement spacer in periprosthetic knee infection: A meta-analysis]
Mustafa Citak1, Musa Citak, Daniel Kendoff
1Orthopädische Chirurgie, Helios ENDO-Klinik Hamburg, Holstenstraße 2, 22767, Hamburg, Deutschland, mcitak@gmx.de.
Background:
The standard of care for treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is two-stage revision arthroplasty. The cement spacer in the interim period can be classified as either a static/non-articulating spacers (e.g., traditionally simple cement blocks) or a mobile/articulating spacer.
Objectives:
The goal of the present meta-analysis is to analyze the outcomes with regard to infection control between dynamic and static knee spacers in the treatment of infected TKA with a minimum 3-year follow-up.
Materials And Methods:
We systematically reviewed the literature for potentially relevant articles addressing two-stage revision of an infected TKA using the MEDLINE computerized literature databases. Only 25 articles studies with a minimum follow-up examination of 36 months met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed with regard to infection control after reimplantation between static (318 cases) and dynamic group (700 cases).
Results:
At latest follow-up, the eradication rate in the dynamic group was 89.7% (range 63-100%; SD 9.1) and in the static group 84.8% (range 67-92.4%; SD 7.8; p = 0.32). We are unable to comment on the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) Score and complication rates between static and dynamic spacers because the majority of the studies did not report on this.
Conclusion:
The data show that there are no differences regarding infection control between static and dynamic spacers in the treatment of infected TKA.
