2002
DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200211000-00023
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of a Static with a Mobile Spacer in Total Knee Infection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

2
158
2
11

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 218 publications
(175 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
2
158
2
11
Order By: Relevance
“…These results show that allowing some ROM between stages did not increase the reinfection rate. But Emerson et al [6] reported reinfection was seen at 1.4, 2.1 and 4.5 years after revision surgery with the static spacer and 2.3 and 3.6 years with the mobile spacer. Reinfection may occur at any stage in the follow-up; thus, a further follow-up to review the reinfection rate over the long-term in both groups, is needed especially in the mobile group.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These results show that allowing some ROM between stages did not increase the reinfection rate. But Emerson et al [6] reported reinfection was seen at 1.4, 2.1 and 4.5 years after revision surgery with the static spacer and 2.3 and 3.6 years with the mobile spacer. Reinfection may occur at any stage in the follow-up; thus, a further follow-up to review the reinfection rate over the long-term in both groups, is needed especially in the mobile group.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…They reported reinfection rates for static and mobile spacers of 12% and 7%, respectively. Emerson et al [6] reported reinfection rates for patients with static spacers and mobile spacers of 7.6% and 9% at 36 months, respectively. In our study, mean follow-up duration after TKR revision was 36 months (range, 24-62 months) with the static spacer and 29 months (range, 25-45 months) with the mobile spacer.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fehring et al [11] reported no improvement in ROM with molded cement articulating spacers compared to static spacers while Emerson et al [10] found improved ROM and function with AOC articulating spacers compared to static spacers. Clearly, different articulating spacer techniques may have different outcomes and no consensus exists on the optimum articulating spacer technique.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Articulating spacers preserve some knee motion between stages, reducing scarring and bone loss, with potential improvements in ROM, function, and second-stage exposure [10,19,22].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although some [56,63] prefer it, a two-stage procedure for chronic prosthetic knee infection requires temporary cement spacers to preserve limb length and reduce soft tissue retraction. Static spacers have been suggested [7,15,28,30] to be more stable than mobile spacers when these knees have substantial Each author certifies that he or she, or a member of their immediate family, has no commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%