ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2018
Double-layered antibiotic-loaded cement spacer as a novel alternative for managing periprosthetic joint infection: an in vitro study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Double-Layered Antibiotic-Loaded Cement Spacer for Hip Infection: A Report of Two Cases.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Antibiotic Elution from Cement Spacers and Its Influencing Factors.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Determination of the Elution Capacity of Dalbavancin in Bone Cements: New Alternative for the Treatment of Biofilm-Related Peri-Prosthetic Joint Infections Based on anAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Progress of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in joint arthroplasty.Chinese medical journal · 2020Article
- Biological and microbiological behavior of calcium aluminate cement-based blend for filling of bone defects.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies comparing antibiotic-loaded calcium phosphate cement to polymethylmethacrylate cement reported that although the former has higher elution volumes over a longer period, it is mechanically weak when used alone. To counter this problem, a double-layered antibiotic-loaded cement spacer in which calcium phosphate cement is coated with polymethylmethacrylate cement was created.
methodsIn this study, we compared the double-layered spacer to the polymethylmethacrylate cement spacer in terms of eluent antibiotic concentration, bioactivity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and mechanical strength. Double-layered and polymethylmethacrylate cement spacers that were loaded with vancomycin (VCM) were prepared and immersed in phosphate buffer for 84 days. To facilitate VCM elution from calcium phosphate cores in double-layered spacers, we also drilled multiple holes into the calcium phosphate layer from the spacer surface.
resultsWe found that VCM concentrations in double-layered spacer eluents were higher than those in polymethylmethacrylate cement spacer eluents. The double-layered spacer also had higher bioactivity than the polymethylmethacrylate cement spacer. Although the polymethylmethacrylate cement spacer eluent lost the ability to inhibit bacterial growth on day 56, the double-layered spacer eluent maintained this ability for the duration of our study. Finally, the double-layered spacer retained high mechanical strength throughout the study period.
conclusionsThe beneficial biomechanical and drug-eluting properties of the double-layered spacer might qualify it to serve as a promising biomaterial that could be used for managing periprosthetic joint infections.
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.