Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 22, 2026
Individualized Stem-positioning in Calcar-guided Short-stem Total Hip Arthroplasty
Published on: February 27, 2018
Outcome of total knee replacement following explantation and cemented spacer therapy
Mohamed Ghanem1, Dirk Zajonz1, Juliane Bollmann1
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Background:
Infection after total knee replacement (TKR) is one of the serious complications which must be pursued with a very effective therapeutic concept. In most cases this means revision arthroplasty, in which one-setting and two-setting procedures are distinguished. Healing of infection is the conditio sine qua non for re-implantation. This retrospective work presents an assessment of the success rate after a two-setting revision arthroplasty of the knee following periprosthetic infection. It further considers drawing conclusions concerning the optimal timing of re-implantation.
Patients And Methods:
A total of 34 patients have been enclosed in this study from September 2005 to December 2013. 35 re-implantations were carried out following explantation of total knee and implantation of cemented spacer. The patient's group comprised of 53% (18) males and 47% (16) females. The average age at re-implantation time was 72.2 years (ranging from 54 to 85 years). We particularly evaluated the microbial spectrum, the interval between explantation and re-implantation, the number of surgeries that were necessary prior to re-implantation as well as the postoperative course.
Results:
We reported 31.4% (11) reinfections following re-implantation surgeries. The number of the reinfections declined with increasing time interval between explantation and re-implantation. Patients who developed reinfections were operated on (re-implantation) after an average of 4.47 months. Those patients with uncomplicated course were operated on (re-implantation) after an average of 6.79 months. Nevertheless, we noticed no essential differences in outcome with regard to the number of surgeries carried out prior to re-implantation. Mobile spacers proved better outcome than temporary arthrodesis with intramedullary fixation.
Conclusion:
No uniform strategy of treatment exists after peri-prosthetic infections. In particular, no optimal timing can be stated concerning re-implantation. Our data point out to the fact that a longer time interval between explantation and re-implantation reduces the rate of reinfection. From our point of view, the optimal timing for re-implantation depends on various specific factors and therefore it should be defined individually.
