ArticleJournal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology2025
Tantalum versus titanium acetabular component in single-stage hip revision for periprosthetic joint infection: a comparative analysis of implant survivorship.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe impact of tantalum (Ta) versus titanium (Ti) acetabular components on reinfection risk in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains controversial. While prior studies have focused on two-stage revisions, this is the first comparative analysis of Ta versus Ti in single-stage revisions. This study aimed to compare all-cause rerevision and infection recurrence rates between Ta and Ti acetabular components in single-stage revision for chronic PJI. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this study, all patients underwent single-stage revision combined with intra-articular (IA) antibiotic infusion, with 56 receiving Ta acetabular components and 79 receiving Ti components. Both the Ta and Ti groups utilized acetabular reconstruction methods (including cups with and without augments) and cementless prostheses for all femoral components. We compared implant survivorship between the two groups, using implant survivorship free from reinfection and all-cause revision as the endpoints. Multivariate logistic regression (MVLR) was used to determine the independent predictive factors for septic failure.
resultsThe implant survivorship free from reinfection of the Ta group (92.9%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 85.7~98.2%) was comparable to that of the Ti group (88.6%; 95% CI 81.0~94.9%; P = 0.391; log-rank test). The implant survivorship free from all-cause rerevision of the Ta group (91.1%; 95% CI 84.1~100%) was comparable to that of the Ti group (87.3%; 95% CI 78.9~94.4%; P = 0.323; log-rank test). MVLR did not identify the Ta acetabular component (P = 0.414) as a protective factor against septic failure in acetabular reconstruction. However, previous revision (P = 0.048) was identified as a risk factor.
conclusionsTa acetabular components exhibited a risk of all-cause rerevision comparable to Ti components in single-stage revision, with no significant protective effect against reinfection. These findings suggest that the notion of Ta components preventing infections should be viewed with caution.
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.