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