ArticleActa orthopaedica2025
Cemented versus uncemented fixation of femoral components in 2-stage hip revision arthroplasty to treat periprosthetic joint infection: a cohort study on 94 patients comparing the risks for relapse and reoperation.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeBoth cemented and uncemented stem fixation is used in 2-stage hip revision arthroplasty addressing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We aimed to compare the risk of infection relapse and the risk of reoperation for any reason between uncemented and cemented stem fixation.
methodsPatients who underwent 2-stage hip revision arthroplasty for PJI between 2005 and 2020 were included. Data on baseline demographics, implant type, and microbiological and antibiotic treatment data was obtained from a local registry and medical records. Kaplan-Meier analysis compared relapse-free survival and reoperation-free survival between uncemented (n = 60) and cemented (n = 34) stems. Cox regression models were fitted to assess adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for the risk of relapse or reoperation with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
results94 patients underwent 2-stage revision hip arthroplasty for PJI. Unadjusted 2-year relapse-free survival rates were 95% (CI 89-100) for patients with uncemented stem fixation and 97% (CI 90-100) for those with cemented fixation. Reoperation-free survival at 10 years was 82% (CI 70-95) for patients with uncemented fixation and 61% (CI 43-85) for those with cemented fixation. Using cemented fixation as the reference, the aHR for infection relapse was 2.0 (CI 0.2-20.1, P = 0.6) for uncemented fixation, whereas the aHR for reoperation was 0.3 (CI 0.1-0.9, P = 0.03).
conclusionWe showed no statistical difference in the risk of infection relapse, but uncemented stem fixation in 2-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI was associated with a reduced risk of reoperation for any reason. Uncemented stems may thus be a suitable choice in 2-stage revisions for PJI when this concept is believed to provide better fixation.
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.