ArticleActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2020
Biomechanical comparison of tigecycline loaded bone cement with vancomycin and daptomycin loaded bone cements.
Article in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research progress and future prospects of antibacterial drug-loaded bone cement in the treatment of orthopedic infections.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Review
- Tigecycline Containing Polymethylmethacrylate Cement Against MRSA, VRE, and ESBL-In Vitro Mechanical and Microbiological Investigations.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Cyclic Stability of Locking Plate Augmented with Intramedullary Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) Strut Fixation for Osteoporotic Humeral Fractures: A Biomechanical Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objectives of this study were "1" to analyze the compressive and tensile mechanical strength characteristics of tigecycline loaded bone cement and "2" to compare them with those of vancomycin and daptomycin loaded bone cements which are used in prosthetic joint infections complicated with resistant microorganisms.
methodsIn this study, three experimental groups, which consisted of vancomycin (subgroups containing 1 g, 2 g, and 3 g vancomycin), daptomycin (subgroups containing 0.5 g, 1 g, and 1.5 g daptomycin), and tigecycline (subgroups containing 50 mg, 100 mg, and 150 mg tigecycline) and one control group without antibiotics were used. Using a standardized protocol, all antibiotic loaded bone cements were prepared. For each antibiotic group, including the control group, 10 samples were tested. All samples were biomechanically tested in terms of compressive strength and tensile strength.
resultsCompression tests showed that all determined antibiotic concentrations resulted in a significant decrease when compared with the control group (p<0.0011). Vancomycin and daptomycin study groups demonstrated lower tensile strength than the control group (p<0.0011). However, comparison of tensile values of tigecycline study groups with the control group revealed no significant difference (p>0.0011). In addition, all statistically significant results from between groups comparisons revealed higher tensile and compressive mechanical strength values for the tigecycline groups (p<0.0011).
conclusionEvidence from this study has demonstrated that tigecycline loaded bone cement may have no mechanical disadvantage compared with vancomycin and daptomycin loaded bone cements in terms of mechanical strength when used at defined concentrations.
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.