ArticleInternational orthopaedics2023
Novel, static, permanent spacers to treat chronic knee periprosthetic joint infections.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does spacer type influence bone lysis and clinical outcomes? A comparative analysis in two-stage revision for periprosthetic knee infection.BMC surgery · 2026Observational
- Research and Application of Chitosan Nanoparticles in Orthopedic Infections.International journal of nanomedicine · 2024Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo discuss a static and permanent spacer in the treatment of chronic periprosthetic knee infection. Methods In this study, patients who were diagonised with chronic periprosthetic knee infection and not appropriate to undergo revision operations were included and were treated with static and permanent spacers. Infection recurrence rate was recorded, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and Knee Society Score (KSS) were used to record patients' pain and knee function before the operation and at the final follow-up (minimum 24 months).
resultsFifteen patients were identified for this study. Pain and function were significantly improved at the latest follow-up evaluation. One patient had a recurrent infection and underwent amputation. No patients had signs of residual instability at the final follow-up evaluation, and no breakage or subsidence of the antibiotic spacer were identified at the final radiographic follow-up evaluation.
conclusionOur study provided evidence that the static and permanent spacer was a reliable salvage procedure to treat periprosthetic knee infection in compromised patients.
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.