ArticleInternational orthopaedics2010
Comparison of various surgical methods in the treatment of implant-related infection.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of animal models for Staphylococcus aureus osteomyelitis.European cells & materials · 2014Pooled it
- Comparative effects of locally applied vancomycin and teicoplanin on bone formation and spinal fusion rates: an experimental study.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Effects of Local Application of Nano-silver on Osteomyelitis and Soft Tissue Infections: An Experimental Study in Rats.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2018Article
- Antibacterial and Biocompatible Titanium-Copper Oxide Coating May Be a Potential Strategy to Reduce Periprosthetic Infection: An In Vitro Study.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2017Article
- Autogenous bone graft or foreign material?International orthopaedics · 2010Article
- Did local teicoplanin delivery systems inhibit or aggravate implant-related infection?International orthopaedics · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The treatment of implant-related infections is troublesome. This study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of three different surgical modalities in the treatment of implant-related infection. A total of 32 Wistar albino rats were randomised into four groups after the establishment of implant-related infection: no treatment, surgical débridement, antibiotic-loaded bone cement and antibiotic-loaded autogenous bone. Microbiological colony counts were made at the sixth week in order to evaluate the effectiveness of of the treatments. The antibiotic-loaded bone cement group revealed superior results compared with the other groups in terms of reduction of microbiological colonies. Three animals in the bone cement group revealed extensive infection. Although antibiotic-loaded bone cement showed superiority over other treatment modalities, it should be employed after an unsuccessful trial of débridement because of the risk of extensive infection.
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.