RESUMO
PURPOSE: To determine the superior spacer design, a growing number of studies are comparing treatment results between patients having been treated with articulating and static knee spacers in the setting of two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). In contrast, the primary objective of this study was to compare preoperative characteristics between patients from both spacer groups and examine whether significant differences were present prior to spacer implantation. METHODS: This retrospective, single-centre, cohort study examined the preoperative situation of 80 consecutive knee PJIs between 2017 and 2020. All patients underwent two-stage revision, with 35 (44%) receiving an articulating and 45 (56%) a static spacer. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in terms of patient gender (p = 0.083), age (p = 0.666), comorbidity (p = 0.1) and preoperative clinical function (p = 0.246). Static spacers were significantly more often used in the presence of a periarticular fistula (p = 0.033), infection of a revision implant (p < 0.001), higher degree of bone loss (p < 0.001) and infection caused by a difficult-to-treat pathogen (p = 0.038). Complication and revision rates were similar for both spacer types during the interim period, while patients with articulating spacers demonstrated a superior clinical function (p < 0.001) during the interim period and after reimplantation. CONCLUSION: Static spacers are being utilised in significantly more complex and unfavourable preoperative scenarios. Therefore, a preoperative selection bias may be at least partially accountable for any disparities observed in postoperative outcomes. To achieve the best possible results, surgeons should know and respect the distinct indications of static and articulating spacers and consequently understand and use them as complementary surgical options. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
RESUMO
We greatly appreciate the comments made by Alt et al. [...].
RESUMO
The comprehensive "PJI-TNM classification" for the description of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) was introduced in 2020. Its structure is based on the well-known oncological TNM classification to appreciate the complexity, severity, and diversity of PJIs. The main goal of this study is to implement the new PJI-TNM classification into the clinical setting to determine its therapeutic and prognostic value and suggest modifications to further improve the classification for clinical routine use. A retrospective cohort study was conducted at our institution between 2017 and 2020. A total of 80 consecutive patients treated with a two-stage revision for periprosthetic knee joint infection were included. We retrospectively assessed correlations between patients' preoperative PJI-TNM classification and their therapy and outcome and identified several statistically significant correlations for both classifications, the original and our modified version. We have demonstrated that both classifications provide reliable predictions already at the time of diagnosis regarding the invasiveness of surgery (duration of surgery, blood and bone loss during surgery), likelihood of reimplantation, and patient mortality during the first 12 months after diagnosis. Orthopedic surgeons can use the classification system preoperatively as an objective and comprehensive tool for therapeutic decisions and patient information (informed consent). In the future, comparisons between different treatment options for truly similar preoperative baseline situations can be obtained for the first time. Clinicians and researchers should be familiar with the new PJI-TNM classification and start implementing it into their routine practice. Our adjusted and simplified version ("PJI-pTNM") might be a more convenient alternative for the clinical setting.
