ArticleArthroplasty today2022
Static vs Articulating Spacers for Two-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Minimum Five-Year Review.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of dynamic and static spacers for the treatment of infections following total knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Pooled it
- Toward Evidence-Informed Staging in Septic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: One-Stage, 1.5-Stage, or Two-Stage?Cureus · 2026Review
- 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
- Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Tumor Megaprosthetic Reconstruction: A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2026Review
- Femoral Nail and Cement Static Spacer Technique for the Treatment of Chronic Periprosthetic Knee Infection.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- No difference in failure between static, articulating, and prosthetic low-friction spacers for periprosthetic joint infection of total knee arthroplasty.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2025Article
- Short-term follow-up of antibiotic-loaded calcium sulfate in treating chronic periprosthetic joint infection during two-stage revision.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Clinical outcomes of two-stage revision arthroplasty using a spiked tibial cement spacer in infected total knee arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Article
- Concomitant Cement Spacer and Peri-spacer Fractures Seven Years After First-stage Revision Knee Arthroplasty: A Case Report.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2024Article
- Evaluation of time to reimplantation as a risk factor in two-stage revision with static spacers for periprosthetic knee joint infection.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024Article
- An Innovative Approach to Produce Silicone Mold-Based Antibiotic-Loaded Knee Spacer for Infected Knee Arthroplasty.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2024Article
- Indications and techniques for non-articulating spacers in massive bone loss following prosthetic knee joint infection: a scoping review.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- Antimicrobials in polymethylmethacrylate: from prevention to prosthetic joint infection treatment: basic principles and risk of resistance.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2023Article
- Is long time to reimplantation a risk factor for reinfection in two-stage revision for periprosthetic infection? A systematic review of the literature.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
- 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
- Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe gold standard treatment for infected total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is two-stage revision. The first stage involves a temporary antibiotic spacer, which can be static or articulating; it remains unclear which is best. We aimed to compare 5-year outcomes between static and dynamic spacers.
methodsOne hundred and seventy-six patients with infected TKA requiring two-stage revision were enrolled. Patients were organized based on the type of spacer used during the first-stage revision. One hundred and four patients received articulating spacers, and 72 received static spacers. At 5 years, postoperative range of motion (ROM), Short Form 12 (SF-12), Knee Society Score (KSS), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were recorded. Reinfection and revisions were also tracked.
resultsEradication of infection was similar in both groups, with 83.7% in the articulating group and 86.1% in the nonarticulating spacer group (
conclusionsTreatment with an articulating spacer as opposed to a static spacer resulted in improved ROM, SF-12 physical component score, KSS, and WOMAC function scores at the final follow-up visit. There was no significant difference in reinfection rates. Patients requiring staged revision for infected TKA may benefit from an articulating spacer.
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.