Durable Infection Control and Function With the PROSTALAC Spacer in Two-stage Revision for Infected Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty is recognized as the gold standard in the treatment of infection. However, traditional spacers limit function in the interval between the two stages and may cause instability, scarring, and bone erosion. The PROSTALAC knee spacer is an antibiotic-loaded cement articulating spacer that allows some movement of the knee between stages. Whether motion enhances long-term function is unknown. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore identify the rate of control of infection using the PROSTALAC exchange spacer and to assess the clinical outcome after implantation with a definitive implant. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 115 knees that underwent two-stage exchange with the PROSTALAC spacer. Forty-eight of these had a minimum followup of 5 years (mean, 9 years; range, 5-12 years). RESULTS: At last review, 101 of the 115 knees (88%) had no evidence of infection. Of the 14 knees that became reinfected, four were from the same organism and 10 were with a different organism. After further intervention, using the two-stage approach again, the infection was controlled in 12 of the 14 initially reinfected cases, resulting in a failure to cure in only two cases. We observed improvements in mean WOMAC, Oxford, UCLA, and Patient Satisfaction scores at last review. CONCLUSIONS: The PROSTALAC functional spacer was associated with a 98% rate of control of infection and improvements in the quality-of-life outcomes in the treatment of chronically infected total knee arthroplasties. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".