Skip to main content

Table 1 Study characteristics

From: Comparison of the efficacy of static versus articular spacers in two-stage revision surgery for the treatment of infection following total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

   Number of knees       
Study Type of study Articulating spacer group(A) Static spacer group(S) Age (A/S years) M/F Follow-up (months) Type of antibiotic Type of articulating positioner Literature quality (NOS)
Brunnekreef J 2013 Retrospective 26 9 61/58 15/20 12 Gentamycin/erythromycin Metal -polyethylene 8
Johnson AJ 2012 Retrospective 34 81 62/61 NA 27/66 Vancomycin/tobramycin Three different types 7
Choi HR 2012 Retrospective 14 (10) 33 (31) 64 23/24 58 Vancomycin/ tobramycin Original implant-bone cement 7
Chiang ER 2011 Prospective 23 (22) 22 (21) 71/72 22/23 41/40 Vancomycin Bone cement-bone cement 7
Park SJ 2010 Retrospective 16 20 66.5/60.2 4/32 36/29 Vancomycin/erythromycin Bone cement-bone cement 8
Freeman MG 2007 Retrospective 48 28 64.9/71.2 NA Total 71.2 62.2/86.6 Vancomycin/tobramycin Bone cement-bone cement 6
Hsu YC 2007 Retrospective 21 7 NA 58/101 Vancomycin/tobramycin or gentamicin Bone cement-bone cement 8
Jämsen E 2006 Retrospective 24 (22) 10 (8) 68/70 11/23 32 NA Original implant-bone cement 8
Emerson RH 2002 Retrospective 22 26 65.1/65.7 17/31 45.6/90 Vancomycin/tobramycin Bone cement-bone cement 8
Fehring TK 2000 Retrospective 30 (15)a 25 NA NA 27/36 Tobramycin Bone cement-bone cement 7
  1. Note: (1) The number in brackets in the sample size is the actual number of patients who completed the second revision and implantation of the new prosthesis (excluding the last document); (2) “NA” indicates that no information is available in the literature
  2. aFifteen is the number of patients who have actually completed follow-up