Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33112972›Full record

ReviewDer Orthopade2020

[Is the unlimited use of surgical instruments safe? : Discussion using the example of endoprosthetics].

Martin Ellenrieder, Andreas Enz, Daniel Kluess, Wolfram Mittelmeier

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Orthopade, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Martin EllenriederOrthopädische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Doberaner Straße 142, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland.
Andreas EnzOrthopädische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Doberaner Straße 142, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland.
Daniel KluessOrthopädische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Doberaner Straße 142, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland.
Wolfram MittelmeierOrthopädische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Doberaner Straße 142, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland. Wolfram.mittelmeier@med.uni-rostock.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As medical devices surgical instruments are important components when performing surgery. They can significantly influence the course and outcome of the surgery. Instruments are mechanically stressed in daily use and resterilized multiple times. The majority of manufacturer documentation for endoprostheses lacks specific information regarding tolerable instrument wear and the maximum number of applications for surgical instruments. So far, there are no mandatory algorithms for the necessity of checking and replacing surgical instruments. The risk of mechanical failure, surface damage and ultimately incidents is illustrated using endoprosthesis instruments as examples.

Indexed as

Prostheses and ImplantsSurgical InstrumentsAlgorithmsInstrument failureManufacturer’s instructionMedical devicesMedical implantsReuse

Identifiers

PMID33112972

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.