ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
The role of acetabular cement augmentation in 2-stage revision arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection of the hip.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn the treatment of chronic prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip, two-stage exchange arthroplasty is commonly employed. Various spacer designs, including Hemi-Spacers and Articulating Spacers, are utilized during this process. However, these spacers are associated with a high rate of mechanical complications and pose a risk of progressive bone loss. This study aims to compare these two types of spacers in terms of mechanical complications, center of rotation (COR) restoration, and preservation of acetabular bone stock. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom 2019 to 2022, patients who underwent two-stage exchange arthroplasty for hip PJI across three hospitals were retrospectively reviewed. Data including demographic, clinical, and microbiological information were collected. Radiographic imaging was analyzed to measure acetabular bone erosion, COR, and periacetabular bone resected. Additionally, the average surgical time in the first and second stages, mechanical complications, and the mean duration of the inter-stage period were recorded.
resultsForty patients were divided into two groups: Group A (Articulating Spacer, n = 23) received a preformed femur spacer with acetabular cement augmentation, while Group B (Hemi-Spacer, n = 17) received a preformed femur spacer alone. Acetabular cement augmentation slightly prolonged the first stage but facilitated a faster second stage during subsequent reimplantation. Spacer dislocation rates were 8.7% in Group A and 17.6% in Group B during the interstage period. Radiographic analysis revealed a statistically significant greater degree of acetabular erosion in Group B. A significant difference in Vertical-COR differential was observed, with a more proximalized revision cup compared to the primary cup in Group B, and Horizontal-COR values closer to the native hip in Group A.
conclusionsDynamic spacers with acetabular cement augmentation help preserve peri-acetabular bone stock and prevent progression of acetabular bone erosion during the inter-stage period. Additionally, these spacers reduce the dislocation rates, making reimplantation easier and leading to better restoration of hip biomechanics during the second procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39259308What 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.