ArticleArthroplasty today2025
Real Component Spacers for Two-Stage Exchange Demonstrate Low Bacterial Colonization.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients undergoing two-stage exchange arthroplasty for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with real component spacers (RC) benefit from improved function. While RCs have similar reinfection rates compared to other spacer types, concerns exist regarding the potential for bacterial colonization and biofilm formation on the RC metal components. Methods: Patients who completed two-stage exchange arthroplasty for treatment of Musculoskeletal Infection Society-defined hip or knee PJI were included and explanted spacer components were sent for sonication fluid culture (SFC). Medical records were reviewed for demographics, laboratory values, culture results, and clinical outcome data including 90-day reoperations and all-cause revisions. Results: A total of 112 patients (57 hips and 64 knees) were included. Sixty (49.6%) patients received an articulating cement spacer (AC), 35 (28.9%) received an RC, and 26 (21.5%) received a static spacer (SS). No positive SFCs were identified with RC compared to 18.3% with AC and 11.5% with SS ( Conclusions: RC showed fewer SFCs when compared to AC and SS, though there was no significant difference in positive tissue cultures, reoperation within 90 days, all-cause revision, or revision due to recurrent infection among the groups.
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.