ArticleInternational orthopaedics2023
Efficacy comparison of antibiotic bone cement-coated implants and external fixations for treating infected bone defects.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Expert consensus on the application of bone cement in the treatment of diabetic wounds (2026 edition)].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2026Article
- Orthoplastic surgery for interdisciplinary extremity reconstruction.Innovative surgical sciences · 2026Article
- Limb Reconstruction System for Infected Nonunion: A Retrospective Study.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Global Trends in Orthopedic Biofilm Research: A Bibliometric Analysis of 1994-2022.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Clinical efficacy of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and negative pressure wound therapy in multidrug-resistant organisms diabetic foot ulcers: a retrospective analysis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
- Composite Bone Cements with Enhanced Drug Elution.Polymers · 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy of antibiotic bone cement-coated implants compared with external fixations for treating infected bone defects.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 119 patients with infected bone defects in our hospital from January 2010 to June 2021, of which 56 were treated with antibiotic bone cement-coated implants and 63 were with external fixation.
resultsThe pre-operative and post-operative haematological indexes were tested to assess the infection control; the post-operative CRP level in the internal fixation group was lower than that in the external fixation group. No statistical significance was found in the rate of infection recurrence, loosening and rupture of the fixation, and amputation between the two groups. Twelve patients in the external fixation group had pin tract infection. In the evaluation of the Paley score scale, bone healing aspect revealed no significant difference between the two groups, while in the limb function aspect, antibiotic cement-coated implant group showed a much better score than the external fixation group (P = 0.002). The anxiety evaluation scale result also showed lower score in the antibiotic cement implant group (P < 0.001).
conclusionsCompared with external fixation, antibiotic bone cement-coated implant had the same effect on controlling infection and was more effective in recovering limb function and mental health in the first-stage treatment of infected bone defects after debridement.
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.