ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
Radiographic parameters and mechanical complications of articulating vs. non-articulating hip spacers.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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
backgroundPeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication of total hip arthroplasty. Standard treatment for PJI is a two-stage revision surgery with antibiotic-loaded cement spacers to control infection and provide temporary joint stability. This study compares the radiological outcomes and complication rates between articulating and non-articulating hip spacers in patients undergoing treatment for PJI and native joint infections.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 71 hip spacers (34 articulating, 37 non-articulating) in 38 patients treated between 2004 and 2022. Data on leg length discrepancy, femoral offset, infection control, and mechanical complications were obtained. For infection analysis, only patients treated exclusively with one spacer type were included. After excluding eight patients with mixed spacer types (29 spacers), 30 patients with 42 spacers were included in this subgroup.
resultsArticulating spacers were significantly better at preserving leg length, with a mean discrepancy of -3.7 mm compared to -16.9 mm for non-articulating spacers (p = 0.025). However, non-articulating spacers maintained femoral offset (1.1 vs. 0.7, p < 0.001) closer to physiological offset. The rate of mechanical complications was higher in the articulating spacer group, with spacer dislocations occurring in 45% of cases compared to 10% in the non-articulating group (p = 0.015). There was no difference regarding infection control between both groups.
conclusionIn this exploratory cohort, non-articulating spacers were associated with fewer mechanical complications, whereas articulating spacers demonstrated better leg length preservation. Given the exploratory nature of this study and its methodological limitations, the observed differences between spacer types should be interpreted cautiously and considered associative rather than causal.
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.