Observational studyBMC surgery2026
Does spacer type influence bone lysis and clinical outcomes? A comparative analysis in two-stage revision for periprosthetic knee infection.
Observational study in BMC 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty remains a serious complication associated with substantial morbidity and complex surgical management. Two-stage revision arthroplasty is widely accepted as the gold standard treatment, in which an antibiotic-loaded cement spacer is used during the interim period to maintain joint space and deliver local antimicrobial therapy. While previous studies have compared static and articulating spacers, limited data are available regarding the impact of handmade versus prefabricated spacers on radiological bone loss and functional outcomes.
methodsThis retrospective observational study included 23 patients who underwent two-stage revision surgery for knee PJI between 2011 and 2024. PJI was diagnosed according to the 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria. Patients were divided into two groups based on spacer type: handmade static vancomycin-loaded spacers (n = 14) and prefabricated articulating gentamicin-loaded spacers (n = 9). Clinical outcomes (reinfection, complications), functional outcomes (range of motion [ROM], WOMAC score, ambulation status), and radiological parameters (bone lysis, joint space gap measurements, and AORI classification) were compared between groups. Statistical analyses were performed using nonparametric tests, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsReinfection rates were higher in the handmade spacer group (28.6%) compared with the prefabricated group (11.1%), although the difference was not statistically significant. Radiological analysis suggested greater femoral and tibial bone lysis in the handmade spacer group, reflected by significantly higher AORI scores (femoral p = 0.005; tibial p = 0.002). Functional outcomes favored the prefabricated spacer group, with significantly improved postoperative ROM (p = 0.007) and WOMAC scores (p = 0.038). Independent ambulation was achieved more frequently in the prefabricated spacer group (77.8% vs. 21.4%, p = 0.019). Complication rates, including spacer failure and salvage procedures, were also higher in the handmade spacer group.
conclusionIn this retrospective cohort, the clinical pathway involving prefabricated articulating gentamicin-loaded spacers was associated with less radiological bone loss and improved functional outcomes compared with handmade static vancomycin-loaded spacers during two-stage revision for knee PJI. However, given the limited sample size and retrospective design, these findings should be interpreted cautiously and require confirmation in larger prospective studies.
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.