ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2023
Comparison of Static and Articulating Spacers After Periprosthetic Joint Infection.
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revision of a Dislocated Articulating Antibiotic Hip Spacer as an Alternative to Girdlestone Arthroplasty: A Case Report.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Clinical Evaluation of Two-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Silicone Mold-Based and Metal Mold-Based Antibiotic-Loaded Knee Spacers: A Comparative Study.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2026Article
- 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
- Advancements in treatment strategies for periprosthetic joint infections: A comprehensive review.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2024Article
- Article
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
introductionThere is no consensus on whether articulating or static spacers are superior during two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection. We aimed to compare surgical time, need for extensile exposure, surgical costs, and treatment success for articulating and static spacers.
methodsThis was a retrospective review of 229 periprosthetic joint infections treated with two-stage exchange with a minimum of one-year follow-up. For articulating and static spacers, we compared the need for extensile exposure during reimplantation and treatment failure based on an updated definition. Surgical time and costs at both stages were also compared. Subgroup analysis was performed for total knee and hip arthroplasties.
resultsThere was no difference in the surgical time for spacer insertion; however, articulating spacers demonstrated reduced surgical time during reimplantation (181 vs. 234 minutes, P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, there was no difference in extensile exposures (odds ratio 2.20, P = 0.081), but treatment failure was more likely for static spacers (odds ratio 2.17, P = 0.009). Overall surgical costs for two-stage exchange were similar between groups (23,782 vs. 23,766, P = 0.495).
conclusionArticulating spacers demonstrated shorter surgical times and a trend toward decreased extensile exposures during reimplantation. They also had higher treatment success rates and similar surgical costs for overall two-stage exchange.
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.