ArticleInternational orthopaedics2026
Hofmann articulating spacer vs preformed cement spacer two stage revision in native septic knee arthritis: a comparative study.
Article in International orthopaedics, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSeptic arthritis (SA) of the native knee is a severe and increasingly prevalent condition, particularly among elderly and comorbid patients. When associated with end-stage degenerative joint disease, a two-stage total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with an antibiotic-loaded articulating spacer is commonly adopted. However, evidence directly comparing different spacer designs is limited. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of two two-stage strategies: a preformed cement articulating spacer and a Hofmann-type metal-on-polyethylene articulating spacer.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 15 consecutive patients treated between June 2022 and December 2024 at a tertiary referralcentre. Inclusion criteria were native knee SA with end-stage arthritis managed with planned two-stage TKA and minimum 12-month follow-up. Seven patients received a Hofmann spacer and eight a preformed cement spacer. The primary endpoint was septic failure, defined as recurrent infection requiring surgical intervention; secondary endpoints included functional outcomes (Knee Society Score [KSS], Oxford Knee Score [OKS], Forgotten Joint Score [FJS]), pain (VAS), and range of motion (ROM) during the interstage period and after reimplantation.
resultsMean follow-up was 24.2 months. Infection eradication was comparable between groups, with one reinfection (6.7%) occurring in the cement spacer group (p = 1). During the interstage period, the Hofmann group demonstrated significantly superior KSS, OKS, FJS, VAS, and ROM (p = 0.001). After reimplantation, functional outcomes remained significantly better in the Hofmann group, with greater ROM and higher patient-reported scores. Two patients in the Hofmann group elected spacer retention due to satisfactory function.
conclusionBoth strategies achieved effective infection control. However, the Hofmann articulating spacer provided superior functional recovery without compromising septic eradication, supporting its use in selected patients with native septic knee arthritis and advanced degeneration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42141126What 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.