RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The best antibiotic spacer for periprosthetic knee joint infection treatment is unknown. Using a metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) component provides a functional knee and may avoid a second surgery. Our study investigated complication rates, treatment efficacies, durabilities, and costs of MoP articulating spacer constructs using either an all-polyethylene tibia (APT) or a polyethylene insert (PI). We hypothesized that while the PI would cost less, the APT spacer would have lower complication rates and higher efficacies and durabilities. METHODS: A retrospective review evaluated 126 consecutive articulating knee spacer (64 APTs and 62 PIs) cases from 2016 to 2020 was performed. Demographic information, spacer components, complication rates, infection recurrence, spacer longevity, and implant costs were analyzed. Complications were classified as follows: spacer-related; antibiotic-related; infection recurrence; or medical. Spacer longevity was measured for patients who underwent reimplantation and for those who had a retained spacer. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in overall complications (P < .48), spacer-related complications (P = 1.0), infection recurrences (P = 1.0), antibiotic-related complications (P < .24), or medical complications (P < .41). Average time to reimplantation was 19.1 weeks (4.3 to 98.3 weeks) for APT spacers and 14.4 weeks (6.7 to 39.7 weeks) for PI spacers (P = .09). There were 31% (20 of 64) of APT spacers and 30% (19 of 62) of PI spacers that remained intact for an average duration of 26.2 (2.3 to 76.1) and 17.1 weeks (1.7 to 54.7) (P = .25), respectively, for patients who lived for the duration of the study. PI spacers cost less than APT ($1,474.19 versus $2,330.47, respectively; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: APT and PI tibial components have similar results regarding complication profiles and infection recurrence. Both may be durable if spacer retention is elected, with PI constructs being less expensive.