ArticleScientific reports2024
Biofilm formation of Staphylococcus aureus on various implants used for surgical treatment of destructive spondylodiscitis.
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.
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.
- Direct pedicle screw fixation in infected vertebrae for acute pyogenic spondylitis: short-term outcomes from a single-arm retrospective study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Advanced synergistic antibacterial interfaces enabled by micro/nanostructure-superhydrophobicity coupling: mechanisms and applications.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Article
- Implant-associated biofilms of Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus faecalis clinical isolates on expanded polytetrafluoroethylene suture in Galleria mellonella model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.