166 – A 5 TO 12-YEAR REVIEW OF THE PROSTALAC FUNCTIONAL SPACER IN 2-STAGE REVISION FOR INFECTED KNEE ARTHROPLASTY

Abstract

Purpose: Between 1 and 2% of knee arthroplasties are complicated by infection with its associated patient morbidity. Two stage revision remains the gold standard with the minimum interval considered acceptable between the two stages as 6 weeks, but in some cases can be considerably longer depending on the patients’ clinical response to the first stage and intravenous antibiotics. The interval between the 2 stages is to allow eradication of the causative organism, however, this can result in considerable morbidity for the patient. Patients often have a poor range of movement, instability and considerable discomfort during this time and as a result have poor mobility. Further complications can be encountered at the time of the 2nd stage with considerable scarring of the soft tissues, in part secondary to the lack of mobilisation. Traditionally, spacers which are non-articulating have been used, however, problems of instability, scarring and bone erosion have been reported in the literature. The Prostalac knee spacer constitutes an antibiotic loaded acrylic cement body with a metal on polyethylene surface and enables the patient to undergo rehabilitation in the interval between the 2 stages and may also help maintain soft tissue planes as a result. Previous published results with a mean follow up of 48 months suggest the spacer is just as successful at eradicating infection (91%) as other techniques. The aim of this study is to review 119 patients with a minimum follow up of 5 years.

Method: The Prostalac Knee spacer has 2 components, a femoral and a tibial. Each are made of antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement with a small articulation of metal on polyethylene. The spacers are made from moulds so that a component of a suitable size and thickness could be made. This was a retrospective review of 119 consecutive patients. The inclusion criteria included all patients who had undergone a 2 stage revision with the Prostalac Knee spacer who had more than 5 years of follow up. Patients were assessed using the WOMAC, SF-12, Oxford Knee Score and the Knee Society Score.

Results: Thirteen patients (10.9%) out of a total of 119 had recurrence of infection. This gives an overall rate of control of infection of 89%. Of the 46 patients who completed the outcome score questionnaires with more than 5 years follow up, the mean WOMAC score was 65.9, Oxford Knee score was 61, SF-12 (physical component) was 35.7, SF-12 (mental component) was 54.8.

Conclusion: Although the Prostalac components include polyethylene and metal, they do not seem to have a detrimental impact on the rate of control of infection since our results were similar to those previously reported with other best practice techniques. It is our impression that the Prostalac functional spacer allows earlier pain free mobilisation, allowing the potential for earlier hospital discharge. The savings obtained from earlier hospital discharge greatly outweighing the increased cost of the Prostalac functional spacer system.