ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
The effect of pulsatile lavage on antibiotic elution from bone cements in two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. 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.
- Elution, Porosity, and Mechanical Performance of Vancomycin-Loaded Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) Bone Cement.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
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
purposePeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a major complication after total joint replacement, often requiring a two-stage revision with the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) spacers for local antibiotic therapy. While factors such as cement composition and antibiotic type influence drug release, the impact of pulsatile lavage on antibiotic elution remains unclear. This study investigates the effect of pulsatile saline lavage on the release kinetics of gentamicin and vancomycin from different ALBCs over six weeks.
methodsThree commercially available PMMA bone cements A, B and C were prepared with identical antibiotic concentrations (0.5 g gentamicin, 2 g vancomycin). Rectangular cement blocks were manufactured according to ISO standards. Group A1/B1/C1 (non-lavage) was placed into a buffer solution without further processing. Group A2/B2/C2 (lavage) was treated with a defined amount of saline solution using high-pressure pulsatile saline lavage before being placed into the buffer solution. Antibiotic release was analyzed at ten predefined time points (T) over six weeks (5 h, 1 d, 2 d, 4 d, 1/2/3/4/5/6 weeks). All samples were stored in an incubator at 36 °C.
resultsStatistically significant differences in the release kinetics of both gentamicin and vancomycin were observed for bone cement A and B after processing with saline lavage. Gentamicin release differed significantly between A1/A2 at T2 and T7-T10, and between B1/B2 at T1, T7, and T10; no significant differences were found between C1/C2. Cumulatively, only B1 vs. B2 showed a significant difference in gentamicin release (p = 0.033). Vancomycin release differed significantly between A1/A2 at T1 and T5-T9, and between B1/B2 at T6; again, no significant differences were seen in C1/C2. Cumulative vancomycin release was significantly reduced in B2 compared to B1 (p < 0.001). In four of six cements, vancomycin release declined by over 85% from T1 (5 h) to T3 (48 h).
conclusionPulsatile high-pressure lavage is an essential part of revision surgery due to its mechanical cleansing effects. However, this study indicates that its impact on antibiotic release from loaded bone cement is minimal. While variations exist depending on cement type, lavage does not seem to substantially alter the elution profile or expected antimicrobial efficacy.
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.