ArticleArthroplasty today2024
Polyurethane: An Old Material for a New Generation of Antibiotic Spacer Implants.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2024. 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.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Polyurethane tibial and acetabular inserts that release high concentrations of antibiotics were used with debridement and implant retention to treat prosthetic joint infections. The hypothesis was that a low-friction, antibiotic-releasing bearing could provide a simpler, safer, and more patient-accepted treatment for infection using antibiotic cement and intravenous antibiotics. Methods: Patients (n = 106) with culture-positive infections received antibiotic inserts. Vancomycin and tobramycin were mixed into the polyurethane polymer at 7% by weight. Contraindications to debridement antibiotics and implant retention were a sinus tract, loose prostheses, and/or the wound could not be closed. Measurable outcomes were success in controlling infection, complications, patient acceptable symptomatic state, and need for revision surgery. Antibiotic levels were measured in joint fluid and blood; laboratory mechanical wear tests were performed; and results were compared to bone cement and polyethylene containing antibiotics. Results: Antibiotic-infused spacers sustained joint fluid antibiotic levels 8-12 times the therapeutic level and produced low serum levels with no toxicities. Mechanical testing showed low wear and retained mechanical integrity. All patients achieved complication-free remission of infection at a follow-up of 5-26 years. All patients had Harris hip and Knee Society scores above 85, and 68% achieved patient acceptable symptomatic state. Conclusions: All patients achieved remission of infection, fewer complications compared to revision using antibiotic bone cement, no antibiotic toxicity or adverse drug reactions, and 68% achieved patient acceptance. The antibiotic polyurethane inserts provided antibacterial efficacy comparable with currently used bone cement spacers, and their wear rate was approximately 20 times lower than bone cement as an articulation.
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.