ArticlePloS one2023
An antimicrobial blue light device to manage infection at the skin-implant interface of percutaneous osseointegrated implants.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Light Photo Treatment at 405 nm Can Effectively KillMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Lights out for Superbugs: Is antimicrobial blue light a potential approach for future infection Control?Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2025Review
- Biphasic Effects of Blue Light Irradiation on Different Drug-Resistant Bacterium and Exploration of Its Mechanism.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Rabbit model of a biofilm-contaminated, percutaneous orthopaedic endoprosthesis.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antimicrobial blue light (aBL) is an attractive option for managing biofilm burden at the skin-implant interface of percutaneous osseointegrated (OI) implants. However, marketed aBL devices have both structural and optical limitations that prevent them from being used in an OI implant environment. They must be handheld, preventing even irradiation of the entire skin-implant interface, and the devices do not offer sufficient optical power outputs required to kill biofilms. We present the developmental process of a unique aBL device that overcomes these limitations. Four prototypes are detailed, each being a progressive improvement from the previous iteration as we move from proof-of-concept to in vivo application. Design features focused on a cooling system, LED orientation, modularity, and "sheep-proofing". The final prototype was tested in an in vivo OI implant sheep model, demonstrating that it was structurally and optically adequate to address biofilm burdens at the skin-implant of percutaneous OI implants. The device made it possible to test aBL in the unique OI implant environment and compare its efficacy to clinical antibiotics-data which had not before been achievable. It has provided insight into whether or not continued pursual of light therapy research for OI implants, and other percutaneous devices, is worthwhile. However, the device has drawbacks concerning the cooling system, complexity, and size if it is to be translated to human clinical trials. Overall, we successfully developed a device to test aBL therapy for patients with OI implants and helped progress understanding in the field of infection management strategies.
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.