ArticleArthroplasty (London, England)2026
Preoperative predictors of spacer retention and mortality in two-stage revision for infected total hip arthroplasties: a single-center experience of 90 patients.
Article in Arthroplasty (London, England), 2026. 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
backgroundAlthough two-stage revision arthroplasty achieves favorable infection control rates, a substantial proportion of patients experience spacer retention or short-term mortality. Therefore, the goal of this study was to identify preoperative risk factors associated with spacer retention and mortality during a two-stage approach.
methodsThis single-center retrospective cohort study included a consecutive series of 90 chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) of the hip treated with a two-stage revision between August 2017 and December 2021. Associations between potential risk factors and outcomes were analyzed using correlation analyses, and the effect size was quantified by Spearman's rho (r). Mortality rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test.
resultsAfter a mean follow-up of 48 months (range 24 to 73), 19 patients (21%) did not undergo reimplantation, 23 patients (25.5%) had died, and two patients (2%) were lost to follow-up. Successful reimplantation was significantly associated with implantation of an articulating hip spacer (r = 0.57) and favorable periarticular soft tissue conditions (r = 0.25). Mortality was significantly correlated with a higher comorbidity burden (ASA ≥ 3; r = 0.36) and advanced age (≥ 80 years; r = 0.22).
conclusionThis study identified three simple, yet powerful prognostic markers of spacer retention and mortality. Implantation of an articulating hip spacer emerged as the strongest positive predictor of successful reimplantation, although it likely functions, at least in part, as a surrogate marker for favorable local bone and soft-tissue conditions. In contrast, advanced age and a high comorbidity burden were the strongest predictors of short-term mortality. These readily assessable prognostic markers may facilitate the identification of patients at the highest risk of not completing a two-stage approach or dying shortly after.
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.