ArticleArthroplasty today2024
Cemented Constrained Liners Used as an Articulating Hip Spacer for the Treatment of Chronic Prosthetic Joint Infection.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2024. 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.
- CORR Insights®: Does the Degree of Liner Constraint Increase Risk of Complications in Articulating Spacers in Two-stage Revision After THA?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Article
- Does the Degree of Liner Constraint Increase Risk of Complications in Articulating Spacers in Two-stage Revision After THA?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Two-stage exchange arthroplasty remains the gold standard for treating chronic hip periprosthetic joint infections. However, controversy remains regarding the optimal spacer type, particularly among patients with increased dislocation risk. This study reports on the outcomes of articulating hip spacers utilizing a single constrained-liner design. Methods: All patients who underwent treatment for hip periprosthetic joint infection at a single institution were screened. Patients were included if they received an articulating spacer utilizing a constrained liner of a single manufacturer design. Indications for constrained liner, demographic variables, and surgical variables were recorded. Patients were assessed for dislocation and component loosening prior to the second stage or at the final follow-up if the second stage was not undertaken. Comparative analysis was performed. Results: Overall, 26 constrained liners were utilized in 25 patients. Indications for constrained liner included history of dislocation (n = 14), massive proximal femoral bone loss (n = 14), greater trochanteric deficiency (n = 12), and absent abductors (n = 7). Many patients had more than one indication. In total, 9 hips (34.6%) underwent a second stage at an average of 7.4 months, while 17 hips never underwent a second stage with an average follow-up of 27.6 months. One patient experienced failure of their constrained liner prior to the second stage due to pelvic discontinuity and massive acetabular bone loss. Conclusions: Utilization of a constrained liner as an articulating spacer is a viable option for patients at high risk of instability. Meticulous cement technique, appropriate component position, and implant selection are crucial in achieving successful outcomes.
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.