ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2021
Customized intraoperatively molded articulating cement spacers for two-stage revisions TKA with major bone defects.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hofmann articulating spacer vs preformed cement spacer two stage revision in native septic knee arthritis: a comparative study.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Does spacer type influence bone lysis and clinical outcomes? A comparative analysis in two-stage revision for periprosthetic knee infection.BMC surgery · 2026Observational
- No clinical relevant differences in early clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction and objective gait and posture analysis between a custom versus off-the-shelf total knee arthroplasty: a prospective controlled study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Are Static Spacers Superior to Articulated Spacers in the Staged Treatment of Infected Primary Knee Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of articulating spacers, molded or prefabricated, becomes difficult in case of severe bone losses. Our idea was to customize the Molded Articulating Cement Spacers with cement stem extensions and if necessary metaphyseal cement augmentations in order to use them also in case of major bone defects.
methodsFifty-four knees in fifty-three patients undergoing 2-stage exchange arthroplasty were divided in 4 groups, treated with 4 different types of spacers (Static, articulating molded, customized molded and metal on Poly) and evaluated in terms of Range of Motion (ROM), Knee Society Score (KSS), patients' related outcome measures (PROMs), rate of complication and ease of the surgical exposure at the time of reimplantation.
resultsAt final follow-up, no statistical differences in terms of ROM and KSS were found between the articulating groups. Static Spacers showed statistically significant lower results both in terms of ROM and KSS comparing to the other 3 groups (P < 0.05). Considering PROMs, statistically better outcomes for all articulating spacers were found both when spacer was in place and at final follow-up comparing to the static spacers group (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found between the 3 articulating spacers groups. Radiographic analysis did not show signs of loosening, migration or major bone loss.
conclusionsCustomized Intraoperatively Molded Articulating Cement Spacers are a safe solution for two-stage revisions TKA with major bone defects and may provide a better quality of life for patients when in place comparing to static ones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33417052What 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.