Staged Revision of Infected-hip Arthroplasty Using an Antibiotics-loaded Intra-articular Cement Spacer: Impact on Cemented and Cementless Stem Retention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Currently, standard management of a peri-prosthetic infection is a two-stage revision precedure. However, removal of well-fixed cement is technically demanding and associated with numerous potential complications. For theses reasons, two-stage revision with preservation of the original femoral stem can be considered and several previous studies have achieved successful results. While most prior studies used cemented stems, the use of cementless stems during arthroplasty has been gradually increasing; this study aims to assess the comparative effectiveness of a two-stage revision of infected hip arthroplasties at preserving cemented and cementless stems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between December 2001 and February 2017, Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital treated 45 cases of deep infections following hip arthroplasty with a two stage revisional arthroplasty using antibiotics-loaded cement spacers. This approach was applied in an effort to preserve the previously implanted femoral stem. Of these 45 cases, 20 were followed-up for at least two years and included in this analysis. Perioperative clinical symptoms, radiological findings, function and complications during insertion of an antibiotics-loaded cement spacer were analyzed in this study. RESULTS: Peri-prothetic infections were controlled in 19 of the 20 included cases. Clinical outcomes, as assessed using the Harris hip score, Western Ontario and McMaster University score, also improved. Importantly, similarly improved outcomes were achieved for both cemented and cementless femoral stems. CONCLUSION: In cases of deep infection following hip arthroplasty, two-stage revision arthroplasty to preserve the previously implanted femoral stem (cemented or cementless) effectively controls infections and preserves joint function.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".