ReviewArthroplasty (London, England)2025
Prosthetic articulating spacers as a preferred option for two-stage revision arthroplasty in chronic periprosthetic joint infection.
Review in Arthroplasty (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Bacteriophages in Hip and Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infections: A Promising Tool in the Era of Antibiotic Resistance.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical and psychosocial impact of limited mobility during the interstage period of two-stage revision arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection: a state-of-the-art review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe study aimed to compare the infection control rates, mechanical complications, and functional outcomes between prosthetic and cement spacers in two-stage revision arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). PATIENTS AND
methodsData from patients treated for chronic PJI in our center from 2014 to 2023 were retrospectively collected and the patients were divided into the prosthetic spacer (PS) and cement spacer (CS) groups based on the type of spacer used for the first-stage surgeries. Data on patients' demographics and clinical scores were harvested. Infection control rates and mechanical complications were compared between the two groups by using chi-square tests and log-rank analysis.
resultsThe study involved 113 cases, with a mean age of 64 ± 11.45 years (range, 31-88 years), with 48 cases in the PS group, 65 in the CS group, and all patients were followed up for at least 1 year (average 52.68 ± 26.07 months). Five patients in the PS group (10.42%) and six in the CS group (9.23%) developed recurrent infections, with no significant difference found in infection control rates (P = 0.833). The joint function score after the first-stage surgeries was higher in the PS group than in the CS group (P = 0.021). The incidence of mechanical complications, including dislocation, spacer fracture, and periprosthetic fracture, was significantly lower in the PS group than in the CS group (P = 0.024). The proportion of patients who underwent second-stage surgeries was lower in the PS group than in the CS group (58.3% vs 70.77%, P = 0.169).
conclusionFor most patients with chronic PJI, PS can be used as the preferred option for two-stage revision arthroplasty.
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.