A Permanent Articulating Spacer Versus Two-Stage Exchange for Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Propensity...

Although 2-stage revision has been proposed as gold standard for periprosthetic joint infection treatment, limited evidence exists for the role of articulating spacers as definitive management. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and costs associated with articulating spacers (1.5-stage) and a matched 2-stage cohort.

A retrospective review was performed for patients who had chronic periprosthetic joint infections after total knee arthroplasty defined by Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria and were matched via propensity score matching using cumulative Musculoskeletal Infection Society scores and a comorbidity index. Patients who maintained an articulating spacer (cemented cobalt-chrome femoral component and all-poly tibia) were included in the 1.5-stage cohort. Patients who underwent a 2-stage reimplantation procedure were included in the 2-stage cohort. Outcomes included visual analog scale pain scores, 90-day emergency department visits, 90-day readmission, unplanned reoperation, reinfection, as well as cost at 1 and 2-year intervals. A total of 116 patients were included for analyses.

The 90-day pain scores were lower in the 1.5-stage cohort compared to the 2-stage cohort (2.9 versus 4.6, P = .0001). There were no significant differences between readmission and reoperation rates. Infection clearance was equivalent at 79.3% for both groups. Two-stage exchange demonstrated an increased cost difference of $26,346 compared to 1.5-stage through 2 years (P = .0001). Regression analyses found 2 culture-positive results with the same organism decreased the risk for reinfection [odds ratio: 0.2, 95% confidence interval 0.04-0.8, P = .03].

For high-risk candidates, articulating spacers can preserve knee function, reduce morbidity from second-stage surgery, and lower the costs with similar rates of infection clearance as 2-stage exchange.

Level III, therapeutic study.