ArticleHistology and histopathology2023
Immunohistochemical evaluation of tissues following bone implant extraction from upper and lower limb.
Article in Histology and histopathology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Fractured bones can regenerate and restore their biological and mechanical properties to the state prior to the damage. In some cases, however, the treatment of fractures requires the use of supportive implants. For bone healing, three processes are essential: the inflammatory phase, the repair phase and the remodelling phase. A proper course of the first - inflammatory - stage is important to ensure a successful fracture healing process. In our study, we evaluated tissue samples immunohistochemically from the area surrounding the fractures of upper and lower limbs (bone tissue, soft tissue, and the implant-adhering tissue) for markers: CD11b, CD15, CD34, CD44, CD68, Cathepsin K, and TRAcP that are linked to the aforementioned phases. In soft tissue, higher expressions of CD68, CD34, CD15 and CD11b markers were observed than in other locations. TRAcP and Cathepsin K markers were more expressed in the bone tissue, while pigmentation, necrosis and calcification were more observed in the implant-adhering tissue. Since even the implant materials commonly perceived as inert elicit the observed inflammatory responses, new surface treatments and materials need to be developed.
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.