Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35840986›Full record

SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2022

Comparison of dynamic and static spacers for the treatment of infections following total knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jiasheng Tao, Zijian Yan, Bin Pu, Ming Chen, Xiaorong Hu, Hang Dong

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jiasheng Tao *The First Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Number12, Jichang Road, Baiyun District, Guangzhou, 510405, Guangdong Province, China.
Zijian Yan *The First Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Number12, Jichang Road, Baiyun District, Guangzhou, 510405, Guangdong Province, China.
Bin PuThe First Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Number12, Jichang Road, Baiyun District, Guangzhou, 510405, Guangdong Province, China.
Ming ChenThe First Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Number12, Jichang Road, Baiyun District, Guangzhou, 510405, Guangdong Province, China.
Xiaorong HuThe First Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Number12, Jichang Road, Baiyun District, Guangzhou, 510405, Guangdong Province, China.
Hang DongDepartment of TCM Orthopedics, Hospital for First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Number16, Jichang Road, Baiyun District, Guangzhou, 510405, Guangdong Province, China. donghang5018@gzucm.edu.cn.
Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

Hang Dong No: 82004390
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRevision surgery is the most common treatment for patients who develop infection after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Two types of spacers are often used in revision surgery: dynamic spacers and static spacers. The comparative efficacy of these two types of spacers on knee prosthesis infections is not well established. Therefore, we carried out a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis with the aim of comparing the difference in efficacy between dynamic and static spacers.

methodsWe conducted the literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. The articles searched were clinical study comparing the difference in efficacy between dynamic spacers and static spacers for the treatment of prosthetic infections occurring after total knee arthroplasty.

resultsWe conducted a literature search and screening based on the principles of PICOS. Ultimately, 14 relevant clinical studies were included in our current study. We use infection control rate as the primary evaluation indicator. The KSS knee scores (KSSs), KSS functional scores, bone loss and range of motion (ROM) are secondary indicators of evaluation. Thirteen of these included studies reported the infection control rates, with no significant difference between dynamic and static shims (RR: 1.03; 95% Cl 0.98, 1.09; P = 0.179 > 0.05). The KSSs were reported in 10 articles (RR: 5.98; 95% CI 0.52, 11.43; P = 0.032 < 0.05). Six articles reported the KSS functional scores (RR: 13.90; 95% CI 4.95, 22.85; P = 0.02 < 0.05). Twelve articles reported the ROM (RR: 17.23. 95% CI 10.18, 24.27; P < 0.0001). Six articles reported the bone loss (RR: 2.04; 95% CI 1.11, 3.77; P = 0.022 < 0.05).

conclusionCurrent evidence demonstrates that dynamic spacers are comparable to static spacers in controlling prosthetic joint infection. In terms of improving the functional prognosis of the knee joint, dynamic spacers are more effective than static spacers.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisProsthesis-Related InfectionsHumansKnee JointRange of Motion, ArticularReoperationTreatment OutcomeDynamic spacersMeta-analysisPeriprosthetic joint infectionStatic spacersTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID35840986
PMCPMC9284771
OpenAlexW4285592146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.