ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2020
Comparing the use of preformed vs hand-made antibiotic spacer cement in two stages revision of hip periprosthetic infection.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cure rate of infections is not an argument for spacer in two-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Trial
- Custom-Made Antibiotic Cement-Coated Nail for the Treatment of Infected Bone Defect.BioMed research international · 2021Trial
- Development and Internal Evaluation of a Biomarker-Based Model for Preoperative Diagnosis of Infectious Nonunion.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Additive Manufacturing, Thermoplastics, CAD Technology, and Reverse Engineering in Orthopedics and Neurosurgery-Applications to Preventions and Treatment of Infections.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The Effect of Spacer Treatment of Infected Hip and Knee Arthroplasties on Patients' Mental Health: A Narrative Review of the Literature.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Proximal femoral defect classifications in revision total hip arthroplasty from X-rays imaging to advanced 3D imaging: a narrative review.Annals of joint · 2024Review
- The influence of different THA surgical approaches on Patient's early postoperative anxiety and depression.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- Cemented hemiarthroplasty versus proximal femoral nail antirotation in the management of intertrochanteric femoral fractures in the elderly: a case control study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- Management of pertrochanteric fractures in patients over 90 years: In-hospital mortality rate, complications and associated risk factors.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) is continuously increasing because of the increasing number of arthroprostheses performed every year. Two-stage revision, using antibiotic-loaded spacers, remains the gold standard for their treatment. The aim of our study is to compare the use of preformed vs hand-made spacers in hip arthroplasty infections evaluating infection eradication, bone loss and clinical/functional outcomes.
methodsFrom January 2010 to December 2017 we performed a prospective nonrandomized study. We pooled 50 patients affected by infected hip joint replacements, and divided them in 2 groups, one receiving commercially preformed spacers and the other receiving hand-made spacers. The study endpoint was set at 12 months. Intra-operative and peri-operative complications, Harris Hip Score (HHS), Short Form 12 Health Survey, intra-operative and radiological evaluation of bone loss were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, T-test and Fisher Exact test.
resultsWe found a statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the two groups in favour of the VancogenX group for the following variables: surgical time, first and second stage intraoperative complication rates, infection eradication. Moreover, the preformed-spacers group had better results in the preservation of bone stock, even though the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
conclusionOur results support the use of preformed antibiotic spacers, even though more studies are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.