Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28540567›Full record

ReviewDer Unfallchirurg2017

[The significance of biofilm for the treatment of infections in orthopedic surgery : 2017 Update].

C Scheuermann-Poley, C Wagner, J Hoffmann, A Moter, C Willy

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Unfallchirurg, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

C Scheuermann-PoleyAbteilung für Unfallchirurgie, Orthopädie, septische und plastische Chirurgie, Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Berlin, Scharnhorststr. 13, 10115, Berlin, Deutschland.
C WagnerZentrum für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Klinikum Ingolstadt, Krumenauerstr. 25, 85049, Ingolstadt, Deutschland.
J HoffmannBiofilmzentrum, Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Deutschland.
A MoterBiofilmzentrum, Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203, Berlin, Deutschland.
C WillyKlinik für Unfallchirurgie, Orthopädie, septisch-rekonstruktive Chirurgie, Forschungs- und Behandlungszentrum Septische Defektwunden, Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Berlin, Scharnhorststr. 13, 10115, Berlin, Deutschland. christianwilly@bundeswehr.org.
Bundeswehrkrankenhaus · DEDeutsches Herzzentrum der Charité · DEKlinikum Ingolstadt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increase in endoprosthetic and osteosynthetic surgical treatment is associated with a simultaneous increase in implant-associated infections (surgical site infections, SSI). Biofilms appear to play a significant role in the diagnosis and treatment of these infections and heavily contaminated wounds. This article aims to provide a current overview of biofilm and its relevance in orthopedic surgery. MATERIALS AND

methodsA computer-assisted literature search of MedLine (PubMed) was performed using key word combinations with "biofilm" (as of March 2017).

resultsBiofilm, a polymicrobial organization and life form surrounded by a polysaccharide matrix, refers to an adaptation strategy of bacteria in unfavorable living conditions (e. g. under antibiotic therapy). Biofilms can develop after 6 h in highly contaminated wounds. In acute and chronic infections, biofilms can occur in 30-80 % of the cases. Only planktonic bacteria (high metabolic activity, cultivable) can be detected in standard microbiological cultures, biofilms, however, cannot. Molecular microscopic methods, such as fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), enable the detection of bacteria in biofilms. The core concepts of anti-biofilm therapy include the prevention of biofilm and early surgical debridement, followed by the local and/or systemic administration of antibiotics as well as the local application of antiseptics.

conclusionsThe development of biofilm should be anticipated in strongly contaminated wounds as well as in acute and chronic infection sites. The best strategy to combat biofilms is to prevent their development. Standard microbiological culture methods do not enable the detection of biofilm. Therefore, the implementation of molecular biological detection methods (z. B. FISH) is important. Further anti-biofilm strategies are being investigated experimentally, but there are no real options for clinical use as of yet.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial InfectionsBiofilmsCombined Modality TherapyDebridementEvidence-Based MedicineHumansNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyOrthopedic ProceduresSurgical Wound InfectionTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntiseptic agentsDebridementFluorescence in situ hybridizationImplant-associated infectionsNegative pressure wound therapy instillation

Identifiers

PMID28540567
OpenAlexW2617460209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.