ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023
Clinical evaluation of a new technique for custom-made spacers in septic two-stage revision of total hip arthroplasties.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Multiantibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement on the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infections of Hip and Knee Arthroplasties-A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn septic two-stage revision surgery, success depends on numerous factors. Key steps are the procedure of ex- and reimplantation and the choice of spacer in the interim phase. The latter is still a matter of debate. Recently, we showed the microbial non-inferiority of a spacer technique using prosthetic cemented implants with an individualized antibiotic mixture in the cement applying a mechanically inferior cementation method. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical results of these spacers in view of either an endofemoral or a transfemoral procedure. MATERIALS AND
methodsOur collective consisted of 86 patients (45 endofemoral and 41 transfemoral procedures). The collective was analyzed with respect to complications, reinfection rate and clinical status at the end of the interim phase. Results of an endofemoral and transfemoral approach were compared.
resultsWith a median Staffelstein-Score of 60 (range 31-81) at the end of the interim phase, the first clinical results are promising. The reinfection-free rate after a median follow-up of 50 months was 90%. Spacer-related complications occurred in 8% of the total collective. Comparing the endo- and transfemoral procedure, there were no statistical differences in complications or regarding the clinical and infectiological outcome.
conclusionsIn this study, we were able to show good clinical results for the presented spacer technique. With no relevant difference in outcome, the decision for an endofemoral or transfemoral technique can be based on technical deliberations. Further prospective comparative studies are necessary to show the clinical benefit of this procedure.
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.