ArticleInternational orthopaedics2022
Novel molded antibiotic cement spacer: is it better than handmade cement spacer for treatment of chronically infected total hip arthroplasty?
Article in International orthopaedics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiographic parameters and mechanical complications of articulating vs. non-articulating hip spacers.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA handmade antibiotic cement spacer is the easiest method for producing a spacer for treating chronic periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, a molded spacer offers more head and stem sizes to match the patient's anatomy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the functional outcomes and complications between handmade and molded spacers.
methodsThis retrospective case note study compared the functional results, re-infection rate, and spacer related complications after the first stage and second stage exchange arthroplasty between a handmade spacer and a novel molded cement spacer with three sizes of femoral head (45, 50, and 55 mm) and two stem sizes (small, large).
resultsFifteen chronically infected THA patients were identified: nine handmade and 6 molded spacers. The modified Harris Hip Score showed no inter-group differences pre-operatively and after first stage and second stage exchange arthroplasty. The erythrocyte sedimentary rates and C-reactive protein concentrations were similar at all time points, and there were no re-infections. The molded spacer group showed lower post-operative complications with no spacer fractures, spacer dislocations, and periprosthetic fractures, but two had spacer subsidence. The handmade spacer had two spacer fractures, one spacer dislocation with a periprosthetic femoral fracture, and four cases of spacer subsidence.
conclusionOur small study showed no differences in functional outcomes and no re-infections in either group, but higher spacer-related complications occurred in the handmade spacer group. These data suggest molded spacers are better than handmade spacers.
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.