ArticleWorld journal of orthopedics2025
Comparative study of a rabbit model of spinal tuberculosis using different concentrations of
Article in World journal of orthopedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Calcium hydroxide coating for orthopedic implants: evaluation of osseointegrative and antibacterial propertiesFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Development of a Rifapentine-Loaded Alendronate-Conjugated PLGA-PEG Nanosystem: A Novel Bone-Targeted Strategy for Osteoarticular Tuberculosis Treatment with Enhanced Drug Delivery and Bone Regeneration.International journal of nanomedicine · 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
backgroundTuberculosis is among the most devastating infectious diseases worldwide. Spinal tuberculosis is not easy to detect at an early stage, which without effective treatment often leads to spinal deformity and spinal cord damage which in turn cause complications such as paraplegia and quadriplegia. In this study, we established a model using three concentrations of bacteria and carried out a comprehensive evaluation of the model by imaging, general observations, and histopathological and bacteriological studies.
aimTo establish a rabbit model of spinal tuberculosis and examine the effect on the model's efficacy using different concentrations of
methodsNew Zealand rabbits were randomly divided into experimental, control and blank groups. The experimental and control animals were sensitized with complete Freund's adjuvant, a hole was drilled beneath the upper endplate of the L6 vertebral body and filled with gelfoam sponge. The experimental group was divided into three subgroups (experimental 1, experimental 2, experimental 3) and infused with
resultsThe survival rate of the control and blank groups was 100%. Vertebral body destruction at 8 weeks in the three experimental groups as determined by X-ray analysis was 33.3%, 62.5% and 66.7%, and by computed tomography (CT) and 3-dimensional CT 44.4%, 75% and 100%, respectively. At 12 weeks, the figures were 44.4%, 75% and 100% by X-ray analysis and 44.4%, 100% and 100% by CT and 3-dimensional CT, respectively. All surviving rabbits of the experimental groups had vertebral destruction. The positive bacterial culture rates were 22.2%, 75% and 66.7%, respectively, in the experimental groups. After being sensitized with complete Freund's adjuvant, large differences were observed in the extent of spinal tuberculosis after inoculation of the rabbit
conclusionThe experimental 1 had a low success rate at establishing an infection. The experimental 3 resulted in high mortality and complication rates. The experimental 2 was optimum for establishing a spinal tuberculosis model based on the high level of symptoms observed and the low rabbit mortality.
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.