ReviewCureus2024
Efficacy and Safety of Dual vs Single Antibiotic-Loaded Cement in Bone Fracture Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Efficacy of Dual-Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement Against Multi-Drug-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone fractures often require arthroplasty, which carries the risk of surgical site infections (SSIs) and prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) is commonly used to reduce these risks. Dual antibiotic-loaded cement (DALC) has been proposed as a more effective option compared to single antibiotic-loaded cement (SALC). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of DALC and SALC in preventing infections and related outcomes in arthroplasty. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing DALC and SALC in patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty for fractures. The primary outcome was infection rate (SSI and PJI), with secondary outcomes including re-revision rates and mortality. Databases searched included PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Data synthesis was performed using Review Manager Software (RevMan 5.4, Cochrane Methods, London, UK), and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Nine studies comprising 55,672 patients were included. Eight studies focused on hip arthroplasty, and four included knee surgeries. In hip arthroplasty, DALC significantly reduced infection rates compared to SALC (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.83; P = 0.001), with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 52%). However, no significant difference was found in knee arthroplasty (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.70; P = 0.26). Overall, DALC showed a significant reduction in infection rates (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.00; P = 0.05). DALC also significantly reduced deep surgical site infections in hip surgeries (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.66; P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in re-revision rates for either hip or knee arthroplasty. Mortality rates were also not significantly different between DALC and SALC. DALC appears to reduce infection rates, particularly in hip arthroplasty, compared to SALC. However, no significant differences were found in re-revision or mortality rates. These findings suggest that DALC may offer better prophylaxis in hip surgeries, but further research is needed to explore its broader benefits and cost-effectiveness.
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.