Journal of Bone and Joint Infection
Journal of Bone and Joint Infection
JBJI
Articles | Volume 10, issue 4
Articles | Volume 10, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/jbji-10-243-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/jbji-10-243-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Articles | Volume 10, issue 4
Original full-length article
 | 
30 Jul 2025
Original full-length article |  | 30 Jul 2025

No difference in failure between static, articulating, and prosthetic low-friction spacers for periprosthetic joint infection of total knee arthroplasty

Michael F. Shannon, Timothy Edwards, Timothy Maurer, Andrew J. Frear, Victoria R. Wong, Shaan Sadhwani, Clair Smith, Anthony Kamson, Brian Omslaer, Christian Cisneros, Andrew Gordon, Akeem Williams, Neel B. Shah, and Kenneth L. Urish

Viewed

Total article views: 36 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
34 1 1 36 0 0 0
  • HTML: 34
  • PDF: 1
  • XML: 1
  • Total: 36
  • Supplement: 0
  • BibTeX: 0
  • EndNote: 0
Views and downloads (calculated since 30 Jul 2025)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 30 Jul 2025)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 36 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 36 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 01 Aug 2025
Download
Short summary
We retrospectively compared outcomes of two-stage revision with three common spacer types. No significant difference in failure rate was seen across groups, contributing evidence of similar efficacy. Articulating spacers showed a greater range of motion than static spacers, and static spacers were associated with a higher adverse event rate, directly showing potential advantages and disadvantages of each variant. A trend toward a longer interstage duration for prosthetic spacers may reflect greater functionality.
Share