ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2022
Quality of life, infection control, and complication rates using a novel custom-made articulating hip spacer during two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mechanical complications of hip spacers: a systematic review of the literature.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Pooled it
- 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
- Impact of surface structuring on antibiotic elution from bone cement in two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Comparative effectiveness of single-stage versus two-stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection: emulation of the INFORM target trial using electronic health record data.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Observational
- Preoperative predictors of spacer retention and mortality in two-stage revision for infected total hip arthroplasties: a single-center experience of 90 patients.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Article
- The effect of pulsatile lavage on antibiotic elution from bone cements in two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- The role of acetabular cement augmentation in 2-stage revision arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection of the hip.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- 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
- Enhanced antibiotic release from bone cement spacers utilizing dual antibiotic loading with elevated vancomycin concentrations in two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection.International orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Mechanical strength of antibiotic-loaded PMMA spacers in two-stage revision surgery.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
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
introductionTwo-stage revision remains the gold standard treatment for most chronically infected and complex total hip arthroplasty infections. To improve patient outcome and reduce complication rates, we have developed a novel custom-made articulating hip spacer technique and present our short-term results. MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween November 2017 and November 2019, 27 patients (mean age 70 years) underwent two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection of the hip using the articulating spacer design described here. We retrospectively analyzed spacer-related complications as well as rates for complication, infection control, and implant survivorship after final reimplantation. Furthermore, we prospectively collected patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores prior to spacer implantation, with the spacer and after reimplantation of the new prosthesis.
resultsAn additional round of spacer exchange was performed in two patients (8.3%), persistent wound discharge was the reason in both cases. We had one (4.2%) spacer-related mechanical complication, a dislocation that was treated with closed reduction. After reimplantation, infection control was achieved in 96% with an implant survivorship of 92% after a mean follow-up time of 19 (range 7-32, SD 7.2) months. While the scores for VR-12 MCS, VAS hip pain and patient-reported overall satisfaction significantly improved after first stage surgery, the scores for WOMAC, UCLA and VR-12 PCS significantly improved after second stage surgery.
conclusionsOur two-stage approach for periprosthetic joint infection shows high infection eradication and implant survivorship rates at short-term follow-up. Spacer-related complication rates were low, and we achieved high patient satisfaction rates and low pain levels already during the spacer period. To further simplify comparison between different spacer designs, we propose a new hip spacer classification system.
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.