Use of static or articulating spacers for infection

Use of Static or Articulating Spacers for Infection
Following Total Knee Arthroplasty
A Systematic Literature Review
Pramod B. Voleti, MD, Keith D. Baldwin, MD, MSPT, MPH, and Gwo-Chin Lee, MD
Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Background: The so-called gold standard for treatment of periprosthetic joint infection following total knee arthroplasty
is two-stage reimplantation. However, it is unclear whether use of static or articulating antibiotic-impregnated spacers
during the interim period between these two stages is superior. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of
static and articulating spacers in the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty.
Methods: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature indexed by MEDLINE and Embase was performed to identify
studies reporting the outcomes of antibiotic spacers in the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty. Seven
Level-III comparative studies and thirty-two Level-IV case series remained following the screening process. The data in
these studies were extracted and aggregated to compare the reinfection rate, range of knee motion, functional scores,
and complication rates between static and articulating spacers.
Results: The two types of spacers demonstrated similar reinfection rates (7% for articulating and 12% for static, p = 0.2).
However, the articulating spacers resulted in significantly greater range of knee motion after reimplantation (101° for
articulating and 91° for static, p = 0.0002). Despite this difference in ultimate knee motion, functional scores in the treatment
groups were similar. Rates of wound-related and spacer-related complications were similarly low with both types of spacers.
Conclusions: Our review failed to identify a significant difference in the ability of static or articulating spacers to eradicate
periprosthetic infection following total knee arthroplasty. Compared with static spacers, articulating spacers provided
improved knee motion following reimplantation, although functional scores were similar in the two treatment groups. We
encourage arthroplasty surgeons to consider both static and articulating spacers in the treatment of infection following
total knee arthroplasty and to tailor treatment on the basis of patient-related factors.
Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
R
eported rates of periprosthetic joint infection following
primary total knee arthroplasty range from 0.4% to 2.5%1-5
.
This catastrophiccomplication results in substantial morbid-
ity, is associated with a mortality rate approaching 2.5%, and costs
approximately $50,000 per episode (exclusive of lost wages)6
.
The so-called gold standard for treatment of subacute and
chronic periprosthetic infection following total knee arthro-
plasty is two-stage reimplantation6-11
. In the first stage, a resec-
tion arthroplasty is performed with placement of an antibiotic
spacer. The antibiotic spacer provides local delivery of antibi-
otics, and systemic intravenous antibiotics are administered
simultaneously. The goals of spacer use are to maintain align-
ment, prevent contracture, increase patient comfort, enhance
soft-tissue healing, and deliver antibiotics12
. Controversy exists
regarding whether static or articulating antibiotic spacers are superior
in the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty.
Proponents of the use of static spacers during the interim
period between resection arthroplasty and reimplantation
maintain that static spacers are more effective than articulating
spacers at delivering antibiotics and thus controlling the peri-
prosthetic joint infection13
. However, critics argue that articu-
lating spacers provide better function during the interim period,
Disclosure: None of the authors received payments or services, either directly or indirectly (i.e., via his or her institution), from a third party in support of any
aspect of this work. None of the authors, or their institution(s), have had any financial relationship, in the thirty-six months prior to submission of this work,
with any entity in the biomedical arena that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work. Also, no author has
had any other relationships, or has engaged in any other activities, that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this
work. The complete Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest submitted by authors are always provided with the online version of the article.
1594
COPYRIGHT Ó 2013 BY THE JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY, INCORPORATED
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:1594-9 d http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.01461

superior knee motion and functional outcomes following re-
implantation, and decreased bone loss resulting from spacer
migration14-17
. Despite the multitude of studies comparing static
and articulating spacers, the question still remains: are static or
articulating spacers superior in the treatment of periprosthetic
joint infection following total knee arthroplasty?
The purpose of this study was to analyze the peer-
reviewed literature in order to compare the outcomes (reinfection
rate, range of knee motion and functional scores following re-
implantation, and complication rate) of static spacers with
those of articulating spacers in the treatment of infection fol-
lowing total knee arthroplasty.
Materials and Methods
We performed a systematic query of both the MEDLINE and Embase
computerized literature databases to identify articles containing the key-
word terms ‘‘total knee arthroplasty’’ and ‘‘spacer.’’ The search was performed
on May 1, 2012, and all studies published prior to that date were considered. In
addition to this primary search, we performed a secondary search by scruti-
nizing all references cited in the articles retrieved from the primary search and
identifying additional studies of interest. Each of the three authors indepen-
dently reviewed all articles retrieved from the primary and secondary searches
with use of the systematic strategy outlined below. Each author was blinded
with regard to the determinations of the other two authors.
Studies were included if they (1) described patients treated with static
and/or articulating spacers for periprosthetic infection following primary total
knee arthroplasty; (2) reported reinfection rates, knee motion after reimplan-
tation, functional scores after reimplantation, and/or complication rates; and
(3) followed patients for at least two years. Review articles, technique descrip-
tions, and editorials were excluded.
The initial combined MEDLINE and Embase search with use of the
aforementioned keyword terms yielded 259 unique articles. The titles of these
articles were reviewed independently by all three authors. Articles whose titles
indicated that they were clearly irrelevant to the topic in question (118) were
eliminated. The abstracts of the remaining 141 articles were then scrutinized
independently by all three authors. Articles that clearly did not meet the inclusion
criteria on the basis of the information contained in the abstract (ninety-three)
were eliminated. The abstracts of the remaining forty-eight articles were de-
termined to meet the inclusion criteria by at least one author, and the corre-
sponding full text was therefore reviewed independently by all three authors.
After review of the full text, sixteen of these articles were eliminated unani-
mously by all three authors because they failed to meet the inclusion criteria.
The remaining thirty-two articles from the primary search were retained. At
each phase of review, if one or more authors selected an article, it moved on to
the next phase. In the final (full text) phase of review, there was no disagreement
regarding which articles should ultimately be included.
All references cited in the articles retrieved in the initial query were then
compiled for the secondary search. These references were screened in the same
manner as the articles from the primary search (title review, then abstract
review, then full text review). Seven of the additional articles identified in the
secondary search met the inclusion criteria and were retained. Therefore, a total
of thirty-nine articles underwent the data retrieval process (Fig. 1); seven of
Fig. 1
Flow diagram outlining the systematic search utilized in this study.
TABLE I Characteristics of the Seven Included Level-III Comparative Studies
No. of Patients Follow-up (mo)
Study Overall Static Spacers Articulating Spacers Overall Static Spacers Articulating Spacers
Fehring, 2000
18
40 25 15 33 36 27
Emerson, 2002
14
48 26 22 70 90 46
Jämsen, 2006
19
30 8 22 31 49 25
Freeman, 2007
13
114 38 76 70 87 62
Hsu, 2007
15
28 7 21 69 101 58
Park, 2010
16
36 20 16 33 36 29
Chiang, 2011
17
45 22 23 41 40 41
Total 341 146 195
Mean 54 63 48
1595
THE JOURNAL OF BONE & JOINT SURGERY d
JBJS.ORG
VOLUME 95-A d
NUMBE R 17 d
SEPTEMBER 4, 2013
USE OF STATIC OR ARTICULATING SPACERS FOR INFECTION
FOLLOWING TOTA L KNEE ARTHROP LASTY

these represented Level-III comparative studies that described both static and
articulating spacer treatment groups
13-19
, and thirty-two represented Level-IV
case series that described either patients treated with static spacers (eleven studies,
references 23 through 33 in the Appendix) or patients treated with articulating
spacers (twenty-one studies, references 34 through 54 in the Appendix).
The data published in these articles were meticulously extracted and
compiled. The data obtained from the seven Level-III comparative studies were
used to generate a random-effects meta-analysis model to compare reinfection
rates and frequency-weighted mean knee motion after reimplantation. The
meta-analysis was performed with MIX meta-analysis software (version 1.7 for
Windows; BiostatXL). The data obtained from the thirty-nine Level-III and
Level-IV studies were used to calculate frequency-weighted means and groupwise
variance for the reinfection rate, range of motion after reimplantation, and
functional scores after reimplantation as well as to compare complication rates
between the treatment groups.
Source of Funding
No external funding sources were utilized for this investigation.
Results
The seven Level-III comparative studies included a total of
341 patients, 146 treated with static spacers and 195 treated
with articulating spacers (Table I). The population sizes for the
individual studies ranged from twenty-eight to 114 patients. Of
note, the frequency-weighted mean duration of follow-up was
greater for static spacers (sixty-three months) than for articu-
lating spacers (forty-eight months). This was because the au-
thors of four of these studies13-15,18
initially used static spacers
exclusively and then transitioned gradually to using articulating
spacers more frequently.
Six of the seven Level-III studies13,15-19
demonstrated a
greater reinfection rate in the static spacer group than in the
articulating spacer group (Table II). However, because of the
overall paucity of reinfections, none of these individual studies
demonstrated a significant difference between the reinfection
rates in the two treatment groups. Aggregation of the reinfec-
tion rate data with use of the random-effects meta-analysis
model revealed a frequency-weighted mean reinfection rate of
12% for static spacers and 7% for articulating spacers (Fig. 2).
This difference was again not significant (p = 0.2). The anti-
biotic concentration within the spacer cement was identical in
the two spacer groups in five of the studies13-16,18
, greater in the
static spacer group than in the articulating spacer group in one
study17
, and not reported in one study19
(see Appendix).
All six Level-III comparative studies that included data
on the range of knee motion after reimplantation14-19
indicated
that articulating spacers resulted in greater range of motion
after reimplantation than did static spacers (Table III). This
difference reached significance in four of the six studies14-17
. The
remaining two studies18,19
were likely underpowered with re-
gard to this variable, although no power analysis was reported.
The results of the combined analysis of the thirty-nine
Level-III and Level-IV studies are shown in Table IV. These
studies included a total of 1526 patients, 654 treated with sta-
tic spacers and 872 treated with articulating spacers. The
frequency-weighted mean duration of follow-up was similar in
the two treatment groups (fifty-seven months for static spacers
and fifty-two months for articulating spacers, p = 0.4). The
mean reinfection rate was again greater, but not significantly so,
in the static spacer group (12%) than in the articulating spacer
group (8%, p = 0.1). Importantly, there was a significant dif-
ference between the groups with regard to knee motion after
reimplantation (91° for static spacers and 101° for articulating
spacers, p = 0.0002). Despite this difference in range of motion,
the treatment groups demonstrated similar functional out-
comes (p = 0.5 for the HSS [Hospital for Special Surgery] score
and p = 0.7 for the Knee Society score). Wound-related
TABLE II Reinfection Rates Reported in the Included Level-III
Comparative Studies
Reinfection Rate (%)
Study Overall Static Spacers
Articulating
Spacers
Fehring
18
10 12 7
Emerson
14
8 8 9
Jämsen
19
13 25 9
Freeman
13
6 8 5
Hsu
15
11 14 10
Park
16
11 15 6
Chiang
17
11 14 9
Mean 9 12 7
Fig. 2
Forest plot showing the meta-analysis of reinfection rates. The diamond
indicates the pooled estimate of the ratio between the infection rates in the
two treatment groups, the horizontal bars and the width of the diamond
indicate the 95% confidence intervals, and the box sizes indicate the
relative weighting of each study. AS = articulating spacers, and SS = static
spacers.
1596
JBJS.ORG
VOLUME 95-A d
NUMBE R 17 d
SEPTEMBER 4, 2013

complications occurred in 8% of patients treated with static
spacers compared with 2% of patients treated with articulating
spacers, and spacer-related complications occurred in 1% of
patients treated with static spacers compared with 3% of patients
treated with articulating spacers. Given the infrequency of these
complications, the present study was underpowered to demon-
strate a significant difference between these complication rates.
Discussion
Periprosthetic joint infection following total knee arthro-
plasty is a catastrophic complication that results in substan-
tial pain, disability, and health-care costs. Even after successful
eradication of the infection, the patient may experience long-
term residual pain and continued disability20
. These poor func-
tional results may be attributed to multiple causes, including
(but not limited to) patient comorbidities, wound-healing
complications, bone loss, and residual infection. Therefore,
optimizing the outcomes of these patients by determining the
ideal type of antibiotic spacer is of critical importance.
Concerns that have been raised regarding static spacers
include bone erosion, spacer subluxations and dislocations,
spacer fractures, knee stiffness, and increased difficulty of expo-
sure during reimplantation. Additionally, patient function during
the interim period between resection arthroplasty and reim-
plantation is limited if static spacers are used, as the patient is
required to keep the affected lower extremity extended. Articu-
lating spacers have gained in popularity because they are thought
to allow limited motion, decrease stiffness, increase the range of
knee motion after reimplantation, reduce surgical exposure time
during reimplantation, and result in improved functional outcomes.
However, some concerns have been raised regarding whether
articulating spacers deliver antibiotics as well as static spacers do.
We failed to identify a significant difference in the ability
of static or articulating spacers to eradicate periprosthetic in-
fection following total knee arthroplasty. Our meta-analysis of
Level-III comparative studies demonstrated a reinfection rate
of 12% for static spacers and 7% for articulating spacers (p =
0.2). The combined analysis of Level-III and Level-IV studies
also demonstrated similar reinfection rates in the two treat-
ment groups (12% for static spacers and 8% for articulating
spacers, p = 0.1). Therefore, the currently available evidence
suggests that the two types of spacers are similarly effective at
TABLE III Range of Motion After Reimplantation Reported in the Included Level-III Comparative Studies*
Range of Motion (deg)
Study Overall Static Spacers Articulating Spacers Reported P Value
Fehring
18
101 98 105 0.14
Emerson
14
100 94 108 0.01†
Jämsen
19
101 92 104 0.143
Freeman
13
NR NR NR NR
Hsu
15
91 78 95 0.019†
Park
16
99 92 108 0.04†
Chiang
17
99 85 113 <0.05†
Mean 99 92 105
*NR = not reported. †Significant (p < 0.05).
TABLE IV Clinical Data Reported in the Thirty-nine Included Level-III and Level-IV Studies*
Variable Overall Static Spacers Articulating Spacers P Value
No. of patients 1526 654 872 NC
Follow-up (mo) 54 57 52 0.4
Reinfection rate 10% 12% 8% 0.1
Postop. range of motion 97° 91° 101° 0.0002†
HSS score 82 81 83 0.5
Knee Society score 78 77 80 0.7
Wound complication rate 4% 8% 2% NC
Spacer complication rate 2% 1% 3% NC
*NC = not calculated. †Significant (p < 0.05).
1597
JBJS.ORG
VOLUME 95-A d
NUMBE R 17 d
SEPTEMBER 4, 2013

controlling infection in patients undergoing two-stage reim-
plantation for periprosthetic infection following total knee
arthroplasty.
Knee stiffness is a frequent complication of periprosthetic
infection following total knee arthroplasty, even after eradica-
tion of the infection20
. Factors that contribute to knee stiffness
include relative immobility during the interval between the two
stages of the revision procedure, multiple surgical procedures,
and scar tissue formation. According to our analysis, articulating
spacers resulted in significantly greater post-reimplantation
range of knee motion compared with static spacers. All six
Level-III comparative studies in which the final range of mo-
tion was reported demonstrated greater knee motion for pa-
tients treated with articulating spacers compared with static
spacers. The frequency-weighted mean range of motion after
reimplantation was 105° for articulating spacers and 92° for
static spacers. Additionally, the combined analysis of the Level-
III and Level-IV studies demonstrated a similar difference in
ultimate range of motion (101° for articulating spacers and 91°
for static spacers, p = 0.0002). The difference in mean flexion
appears small, but the greater ultimate range of motion in
patients treated with articulating spacers may actually result in
a difference in the ability to perform activities of daily living,
such as stair climbing and rising from a chair21
.
Despite the difference in ultimate range of motion, pa-
tients in the two treatment groups had similar clinical and
functional outcomes. We found no significant difference be-
tween the groups with regard to the HSS score (p = 0.5) or the
Knee Society score (p = 0.7). The reason for this lack of dif-
ference in function is unknown. One possible explanation in-
volves the fact that the range of knee motion accounts for only a
small proportion of these two functional scores (18 out of 100
total points in the HSS score and 25 out of 100 total points
in the Knee Society score). Other components of the HSS and
Knee Society scores include pain, ability to perform activities
of daily living (walking, stairs, and transfers), muscle strength,
alignment, and stability. Therefore, although patients treated
with articulating spacers experienced improved range of mo-
tion after reimplantation compared with patients treated with
static spacers, the contribution of residual pain and diminished
activity level to these scores may have led to statistically insig-
nificant improvements in overall knee function.
Finally, the rates of complications—both wound-related
and spacer-related—appeared similar between the treatment
groups. The most common wound-related complications were
wound dehiscence and superficial infection, and the most
common spacer-related complications were spacer migration
and bone loss. Of note, these complications were so uncom-
mon that statistical comparisons could not be performed even
after aggregating all available data. Consequently, it appears
that either articulating or static spacers, when placed in well-
selected patients with use of an appropriate surgical technique,
can yield similarly low complication rates.
The present study has some important limitations. As
with all systematic reviews and meta-analyses, this investiga-
tion is limited by the inherent weaknesses of the component
studies (which were all Level-III comparative studies and Level-
IV case series characterized by retrospective study designs,
limited population sizes, and medium-term follow-up dura-
tions). There was also notable heterogeneity among the com-
ponent studies with regard to surgical technique, spacer
preparation method, spacer antibiotic selection and concen-
tration, duration of intravenous antibiotic treatment, and du-
ration of spacer use. Furthermore, our analysis did not control
for confounding variables (such as medical comorbidities,
body mass index, the extent of bone loss, skin quality, or sur-
gical history) and it did not directly evaluate certain important
outcomes (such as spacer-related bone erosion and operative
time). Our ability to take such confounding variables and ad-
ditional outcomes into account was unfortunately hindered by
inconsistent reporting of this information in the component
retrospective studies. In addition, the included studies were
nonrandomized, and our analysis was therefore likely affected
by selection bias as the authors of the component studies may
have tailored the treatment on the basis of patient-related
variables (such as medical comorbidities, body mass index, the
extent of bone loss, skin quality, and the surgical history). For
example, static spacers may have been employed preferentially
in patients with more severe bone loss. Pooling data from
nonrandomized comparative and observational studies is con-
troversial and does have important statistical limitations that
may impact the results of the review. However, some research
questions, such as the ones addressed in this investigation, are
not amenable to randomized trials; in such cases, the Cochrane
Collaboration notes that authors of reviews are justified in
including nonrandomized studies22
.
Despite its limitations, the present systematic literature
review does make important comparisons between static and
articulating spacers with regard to reinfection rates, knee mo-
tion and functional outcomes following reimplantation, and
complication rates. Given the similar reinfection and compli-
cation rates in the two treatment groups, we encourage arthro-
plasty surgeons to consider both static and articulating spacers
in the treatment of periprosthetic infection following total knee
arthroplasty and to tailor treatment on the basis of patient-
related factors (such as comorbidities, bone deficiency, the soft-
tissue envelope, skin quality, and the infecting microorganism).
Evidence-based medicine dictates that medical decisions
should be guided by sound evidence in the literature. One of
the most important findings of the present study is that the
currently available literature comparing static with articulating
antibiotic spacers in the treatment of infection following total
knee arthroplasty is extremely limited. We encourage the initi-
ation of large, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled
trials to further elucidate the best treatment protocols for
periprosthetic joint infection following total knee arthroplasty.
Appendix
A table listing the antibiotic concentrations in the seven
included Level-III comparative studies as well as refer-
ences for the thirty-two Level-IV case series are available with
the online version of this article as a data supplement at jbjs.org. n
1598
JBJS.ORG
VOLUME 95-A d
NUMBE R 17 d
SEPTEMBER 4, 2013

Pramod B. Voleti, MD
Keith D. Baldwin, MD, MSPT, MPH
Gwo-Chin Lee, MD
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery,
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania,
3400 Spruce Street,
2 Silverstein, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
E-mail address for G.-C. Lee: Gwo-Chin.Lee@uphs.upenn.edu
References
1. Blom AW, Brown J, Taylor AH, Pattison G, Whitehouse S, Bannister GC. Infection
after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004 Jul;86(5):688-91.
2. Hanssen AD, Rand JA. Evaluation and treatment of infection at the site of a total
hip or knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 1999;48:111-22.
3. Peersman G, Laskin R, Davis J, Peterson M. Infection in total knee replacement: a
retrospective review of 6489 total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001
Nov;392:15-23.
4. SooHoo NF, Lieberman JR, Ko CY, Zingmond DS. Factors predicting complication
rates following total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Mar;88(3):480-5.
5. Phillips JE, Crane TP, Noy M, Elliott TS, Grimer RJ. The incidence of deep pros-
thetic infections in a specialist orthopaedic hospital: a 15-year prospective survey.
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Jul;88(7):943-8.
6. Lentino JR. Prosthetic joint infections: bane of orthopedists, challenge for in-
fectious disease specialists. Clin Infect Dis. 2003 May 1;36(9):1157-61. Epub
2003 Apr 14.
7. Teeny SM, Dorr L, Murata G, Conaty P. Treatment of infected total knee arthro-
plasty. Irrigation and debridement versus two-stage reimplantation. J Arthroplasty.
1990 Mar;5(1):35-9.
8. Goldman RT, Scuderi GR, Insall JN. 2-stage reimplantation for infected total knee
replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996 Oct;331:118-24.
9. Wilde AH, Ruth JT. Two-stage reimplantation in infected total knee arthroplasty.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988 Nov;236:23-35.
10. Haleem AA, Berry DJ, Hanssen AD. Mid-term to long-term followup of two-stage
reimplantation for infected total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004
Nov;428:35-9.
11. Hirakawa K, Stulberg BN, Wilde AH, Bauer TW, Secic M. Results of 2-stage re-
implantation for infected total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1998 Jan;13(1):22-8.
12. Booth RE Jr, Lotke PA. The results of spacer block technique in revision of
infected total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Nov;248:57-60.
13. Freeman MG, Fehring TK, Odum SM, Fehring K, Griffin WL, Mason JB. Functional
advantage of articulating versus static spacers in 2-stage revision for total knee
arthroplasty infection. J Arthroplasty. 2007 Dec;22(8):1116-21.
14. 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 Nov;404:132-8.
15. Hsu YC, Cheng HC, Ng TP, Chiu KY. Antibiotic-loaded cement articulating spacer
for 2-stage reimplantation in infected total knee arthroplasty: a simple and economic
method. J Arthroplasty. 2007 Oct;22(7):1060-6.
16. 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 Dec;34(8):1181-6. Epub 2009 Nov 21.
17. Chiang ER, Su YP, Chen TH, Chiu FY, Chen WM. Comparison of articulating and
static spacers regarding infection with resistant organisms in total knee arthro-
plasty. Acta Orthop. 2011 Aug;82(4):460-4.
18. 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 Nov;380:9-16.
19. Jämsen E, Sheng P, Halonen P, Lehto MU, Moilanen T, Pajamäki J, Puolakka T,
Konttinen YT. Spacer prostheses in two-stage revision of infected knee arthroplasty.
Int Orthop. 2006 Aug;30(4):257-61. Epub 2006 Mar 25.
20. Kim TW, Makani A, Choudhury R, Kamath AF, Lee GC. Patient-reported activity
levels after successful treatment of infected total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty.
2012 Sep;27(8)(Suppl):81-5. Epub 2012 May 23.
21. Chiu KY, Ng TP, Tang WM, Yau WP. Review article: knee flexion after total knee
arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2002 Dec;10(2):194-202.
22. Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Wells GA. Including non-randomized studies.
In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. The
Cochrane Collaboration; March 2011. http://handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed
2013 Mar 14.
1599
JBJS.ORG
VOLUME 95-A d
NUMBE R 17 d
SEPTEMBER 4, 2013

Use of static or articulating spacers for infection

More Related Content

Similar to Use of static or articulating spacers for infection (20)

More from mrcs89 (15)

Recently uploaded (20)

Use of static or articulating spacers for infection