ArticleWorld journal of orthopedics2025
Impact of introducing custom-made articulating spacers: A retrospective cohort study on two protocols for two-stage hip revision.
Article in World journal of orthopedics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTwo-stage revision is the most common treatment for chronic periprosthetic joint infection of the hip, involving a resection arthroplasty with or without placement of an antibiotic-loaded spacer, followed by antibiotic therapy before reimplantation.
aimTo compare the outcomes and complications of two consecutive treatment protocols for two-stage revision arthroplasty of the infected hip: One using Girdlestone with an antibiotic holiday, the other using custom-made articulating spacers (CUMARS) without an antibiotic holiday.
methodsIn this retrospective study, two consecutive cohorts were compared. Group A (2017-2020) underwent two-stage revision with a Girdlestone and an antibiotic holiday before reimplantation, while Group B (2020-2023) received CUMARS whenever possible, and no antibiotic holiday, or a Girdlestone if indicated. The primary outcome was successful infection eradication after one year. Secondary outcomes included surgical duration, length of hospital stay, weight-bearing allowance, discharge destination, and complications.
resultsA total of 98 patients were included: 39 patients in Group A and 59 patients in Group B. Successful infection eradication after one year was achieved in 69% of Group A and 83% of Group B (
conclusionA protocol including CUMARS is a safe and effective treatment, offering faster recovery, shorter length of hospital stay, and enabling more patients to return home during the interval. This reduces strain on patients and the healthcare system, potentially saving costs, without compromising infection control or increasing (mechanical) complications.
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.