Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32167192›Full record

Trial reportJournal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society2020

Disinfection of contaminated metal implants with an Er:YAG laser.

Lukas K Kriechbaumer, Wolfgang Happak, Klaus Distelmaier, Gerhild Thalhammer, Georg Kaiser, Sylvia Kugler, Yulong Tan, Matthias Leonhard, Beata Zatorska, Elisabeth Presterl and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 46% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Disinfection of contaminated metal implants with an Er:YAG laser.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2020
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lukas K KriechbaumerUniversity Clinic of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-9711-5044
Wolfgang HappakDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Klaus DistelmaierDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine II, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Gerhild ThalhammerDivision of Trauma-Surgery, Department of Orthopedics and Trauma-Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Georg KaiserDivision of Trauma-Surgery, Department of Orthopedics and Trauma-Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Sylvia KuglerDepartment of Dermatology, Division of Immunology Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Yulong TanDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Matthias LeonhardDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Beata ZatorskaDepartment of Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Elisabeth PresterlDepartment of Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Sylvia NürnbergerDivision of Trauma-Surgery, Department of Orthopedics and Trauma-Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Medical University of Vienna · ATVienna General Hospital · ATParacelsus Medical University · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Infections related to orthopedic procedures are considered particularly severe when implantation materials are used, because effective treatments for biofilm removal are lacking. In this study, the relatively new approach for infection control by using an erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser was tested. This laser vaporizes all water containing cells in a very effective, precise, and predictable manner and results in only minimal thermal damage. For preliminary testing, 42 steel plates and 42 pins were seeded with mixed cultures. First, the minimally necessary laser energy for biofilm removal was determined. Subsequently, the effectiveness of biofilm removal with the Er:YAG laser and the cleansing of the metal implants with octenidine-soaked gauze was compared. Then, we compared the effectiveness of biofilm removal on 207 steel pins from 41 patients directly after explantation. Sonication and scanning electron microscopy were used for analysis. Laser fluences exceeding 2.8  J/cm

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiofilmsChildChild, PreschoolDisinfectionFemaleHumansLasers, Solid-StateMaleMiddle AgedProsthesis-Related Infectionsbiofilm removal, DAIREr:YAG laserimplant-related infectionlaser disinfectionpin-tract infection

Identifiers

PMID32167192
PMCPMC7687249
OpenAlexW3011258690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.