Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26535494›Full record

ArticleEuropean cells & materials2015

3D printed bioceramics for dual antibiotic delivery to treat implant-associated bone infection.

J A Inzana, R P Trombetta, E M Schwarz, S L Kates, H A Awad

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European cells & materials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 134 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Rising role of 3D-printing in delivery of therapeutics for infectious disease.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Exploiting Generative Design for 3D Printing of Bacterial Biofilm Resistant Composite Devices.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2021
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J A InzanaUniversity of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 665, Rochester, NY 14642, USA.hani_awad@urmc.rochester.edu.
R P Trombetta
E M Schwarz
S L Kates
H A Awad
University of Rochester Medical Center · US

Funding

The University of Rochester Core Center for Musculoskeletal Biology and MedicineP30AR061307 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI SCHWARZ, EDWARD M. · 2011 to 2015
$3.0M
NIAMS NIH HHS 30AR061307NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR061307
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surgical implant-associated bone infections (osteomyelitis) have severe clinical and socioeconomic consequences. Treatment of chronic bone infections often involves antibiotics given systemically and locally to the affected site in poly (methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) bone cement. Given the high antibiotic concentrations required to affect bacteria in biofilm, local delivery is important to achieve high doses at the infection site. PMMA is not suitable to locally-deliver some biofilm-specific antibiotics, including rifampin, due to interference with PMMA polymerisation. To examine the efficacy of localised, combinational antibiotic delivery compared to PMMA standards, we fabricated rifampin- and vancomycin-laden calcium phosphate scaffolds (CPS) by three-dimensional (3D) printing to treat an implant-associated Staphylococcus aureus bone infection in a murine model. All vancomycin- and rifampin-laden CPS treatments significantly reduced the bacterial burden compared with vancomycin-laden PMMA. The bones were bacteria culture negative in 50 % of the mice that received sustained release vancomycin- and rifampin-laden CPS. In contrast, 100 % of the bones treated with vancomycin monotherapy using PMMA or CPS were culture positive. Yet, the monotherapy CPS significantly reduced the bacterial metabolic load following revision compared to PMMA. Biofilm persisted on the fixation hardware, but the infection-induced bone destruction was significantly reduced by local rifampin delivery. These data demonstrate that, despite the challenging implant-retaining infection model, co-delivery of rifampin and vancomycin from 3D printed CPS, which is not possible with PMMA, significantly improved the outcomes of implant-associated osteomyelitis. However, biofilm persistence on the fixation hardware reaffirms the importance of implant exchange or other biofilm eradication strategies to complement local antibiotics.

Indexed as

Bone CementsAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBone DiseasesCeramicsDisease Models, AnimalMiceOsteomyelitisPrinting, Three-DimensionalStaphylococcal InfectionsStaphylococcus aureusVancomycinAnti-Bacterial AgentsBone CementsVancomycin

Identifiers

PMID26535494
PMCPMC4663047
OpenAlexW2468757368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.