Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39169088›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Biofilm formation of Staphylococcus aureus on various implants used for surgical treatment of destructive spondylodiscitis.

Amrei T Zacher, Kamran Mirza, Lara Thieme, Sandor Nietzsche, Christian Senft, Falko Schwarz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

6 authors.

Amrei T Zacher *Department of Neurosurgery, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany. amrei.zacher@uni-jena.de.
Kamran Mirza *Institute of Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Erlanger Allee 103, 07747, Jena, Germany.
Lara Thieme *Institute of Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Erlanger Allee 103, 07747, Jena, Germany.
Sandor NietzscheCentre for Electron Microscopy, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Ziegelmühlenweg 1, 07743, Jena, Germany.
Christian SenftDepartment of Neurosurgery, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany.
Falko SchwarzDepartment of Neurosurgery, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The incidence of spondylodiscitis has witnessed a significant increase in recent decades. Surgical intervention becomes necessary in case of bone destruction to remove infected tissue and restore spinal stability, often involving the implantation of a cage. Despite appropriate treatment, relapses occur in up to 20 percent of cases, resulting in substantial economic and social burdens. The formation of biofilm has been identified as a major contributor to relapse development. Currently, there is no consensus among German-speaking spinal surgeons or in the existing literature regarding the preferred choice of material to minimize relapse rates. Thus, the objective of this study is to investigate whether certain materials used in spinal implants exhibit varying degrees of susceptibility to bacterial attachment, thereby providing valuable insights for improving treatment outcomes.Eight cages of each PEEK, titanium-coated PEEK (Ti-PEEK), titanium (Ti), polyetherketoneketone (PEKK), tantalum (Ta) and antibiotic-loaded bone cement were incubated with 20% human plasma for 24 h. Subsequently, four implants were incubated with S. aureus for 24 h or 48 h each. The biofilm was then removed by sonication and the attained solution plated for Colony Forming Units (CFU) counting. Scanning electron microscopy was used to confirm bacterial attachment. The CFUs have been compared directly and in relation to the cages surface area. The surface area of the implants was PEEK 557 mm

Indexed as

BiofilmsDiscitisProstheses and ImplantsStaphylococcus aureusTitaniumAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial AdhesionBenzophenonesBone CementsHumansKetonesPolyethylene GlycolsPolymersStaphylococcal InfectionsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBenzophenonesBone CementsKetonespolyetheretherketonePolyethylene GlycolsPolymersTitanium

Identifiers

PMID39169088
PMCPMC11339328

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.