Comparing Real-component vs All-cement Antibiotic Spacers for Treating Knee Joint Infections After Replacement Surgery

What this Trial Is About

Researchers are evaluating treatments for chronic infections in artificial knee joints, which sometimes do not heal with antibiotics alone. The study compares two common surgical approaches the traditional two-stage revision using an all-cement articulating spacer and a newer single-stage revision using a durable, real-component articulating spacer. Both methods involve removing the infected joint and cleaning the area, but their long-term impact on patient function and satisfaction is not fully known. The two-stage revision involves placing an all-cement spacer that releases antibiotics and requires later surgery to implant a new artificial knee. The single-stage revision replaces the infected joint with a new artificial knee fixed with antibiotic cement intended to remain in place until clinical failure. Both treatments include a 6-week course of intravenous antibiotics. Patients will be randomly assigned to receive either spacer type or may choose treatment in an observational arm. Participants will complete questionnaires about pain, knee function, and overall health before surgery and at 6 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months after surgery. Researchers will also track any complications during and after surgery through medical records. The main outcome measured is knee function at 24 months using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome - Joint Replacement Score KOOS-JR. The study will follow participants for up to five years to assess pain, function, and satisfaction.

Real-component vs All-cement Articulating Spacers for Periprosthetic Knee Infection