ArticleInternational orthopaedics2022
The tale of microencapsulated rifampicin: is it useful for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection?
Article in International orthopaedics, 2022. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional biomaterials for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection: A systematic review of preclinical animal studies.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2026Review
- Prosthetic Joint Infection Research Models in NZW Rabbits: Opportunities for Standardization-A Systematic Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Review
- Do High Doses of Multiple Antibiotics Loaded into Bone Cement Spacers Improve the Success Rate in Staphylococcal Periprosthetic Joint Infection When Rifampicin Cannot Be Employed?Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- 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
- The Current Knowledge on the Pathogenesis of Tissue and Medical Device-Related Biofilm Infections.Microorganisms · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMicroencapsulation techniques have allowed the addition of rifampicin to bone cement, but its in vivo efficacy has not been proven. The aim of our study is to determine the superiority of cement containing gentamicin and rifampicin microcapsules in the treatment of PJI versus cement exclusively containing gentamicin.
methodsAn S. aureus PJI was induced in 15 NZW rabbits. A week after inoculation, the first stage of replacement was carried out, and the animals were divided into two groups: group R received a spacer containing gentamicin and rifampicin microcapsules, and group C received a spacer containing gentamicin. Intra-articular release curve of rifampicin and infection and toxicity markers were monitored for four weeks post-operatively, when microbiological analysis was performed.
resultsThe microbiological cultures showed a significantly lower growth of S. aureus in soft tissue (2.3·10
conclusionThe in vivo analyses demonstrated the superiority of cement containing gentamicin and rifampicin microcapsules versus the isolated use of gentamicin in the treatment of PJI in the rabbit model without serious side effects due to the systemic absorption of rifampicin. Given the increasing incidence of staphylococci-related PJI, the development of new strategies for intra-articular administration of rifampicin for its treatment has a high clinical impact.
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.