ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2024
Concomitant Cement Spacer and Peri-spacer Fractures Seven Years After First-stage Revision Knee Arthroplasty: A Case Report.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) remain an undesirable complication after total knee arthroplasties. Two-stage revision arthroplasty is the current standard of care for treating PJIs. However, the incidence of spacer retention for prolonged periods is increasing, with little known about its potential complications. Case Report: We present a case of a 64-year-old female of Southeast Asian descent who had a cement spacer maintained in-situ for 7 years due to poor patient compliance with subsequent follow-up. Conclusion: While patients have satisfactory functional outcomes with the cement spacer, it is not meant for permanent weight bearing. Two-stage revision arthroplasties are only as effective as patients' compliance with subsequent follow-up and surgery. Clinicians must discourage patients from forgoing subsequent follow-up visits and surgery despite satisfactory function and quality of life with the cement spacer in situ to prevent complications related to prolonged retention of cement 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.