Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33914499›Full record

ReviewACS applied materials & interfaces2021

Anti-Periprosthetic Infection Strategies: From Implant Surface Topographical Engineering to Smart Drug-Releasing Coatings.

Ananta Ghimire, Jie Song

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in ACS applied materials & interfaces, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Ananta GhimireDepartment of Orthopedics and Physical Rehabilitation, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts 01655, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0023-5355
Jie SongDepartment of Orthopedics and Physical Rehabilitation, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts 01655, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7554-5564

Funding

Micrococcal nuclease-triggered antibiotics release: a prophylactic implant coating against S. aureus infectionsR01AR078044 · NIAMS · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI SONG, JIE · 2020 to 2024
$2.4M
Implant surface modification strategies against periprosthetic infectionsR01AR068418 · NIAMS · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI SONG, JIE · 2015 to 2019
$1.8M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR068418NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR078044
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite advanced implant sterilization and aseptic surgical techniques, periprosthetic bacterial infection remains a major challenge for orthopedic and dental implants. Bacterial colonization/biofilm formation around implants and their invasion into the dense skeletal tissue matrices are difficult to treat and could lead to implant failure and osteomyelitis. These complications require major revision surgeries and extended antibiotic therapies that are associated with high treatment cost, morbidity, and even mortality. Effective preventative measures mitigating risks for implant-related infections are thus in dire need. This review focuses on recent developments of anti-periprosthetic infection strategies aimed at either reducing bacterial adhesion, colonization, and biofilm formation or killing bacteria directly in contact with and/or in the vicinity of implants. These goals are accomplished through antifouling, quorum-sensing interfering, or bactericidal implant surface topographical engineering or surface coatings through chemical modifications. Surface topographical engineering of lotus leaf mimicking super-hydrophobic antifouling features and cicada wing-mimicking, bacterium-piercing nanopillars are both presented. Conventional physical coating/passive release of bactericidal agents is contrasted with their covalent tethering to implant surfaces through either stable linkages or linkages labile to bacterial enzyme cleavage or environmental perturbations. Pros and cons of these emerging anti-periprosthetic infection approaches are discussed in terms of their safety, efficacy, and translational potentials.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial AdhesionBacterial InfectionsBiofilmsCoated Materials, BiocompatibleHumansNanostructuresProstheses and ImplantsSurface PropertiesSurgical Wound InfectionAnti-Bacterial AgentsCoated Materials, Biocompatibleantifouling coatingsbactericidal coatingsimplant-related infectionsimplant surface modificationssurface topography

Identifiers

PMID33914499
PMCPMC8130912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.