Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41665819›Full record

SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026

Comparative effectiveness of antimicrobial implant surface coatings in preventing orthopaedic implant-associated infections: a network meta-analysis.

Randa Elsheikh, Abdelrahman Makram, László Toth, Michael Hirschmann, Matthew Adam

Abstract readNetwork Meta-AnalysisSystematic ReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Randa ElsheikhUniversity Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Baselland, CH-4101 Bruderholz, Switzerland., Basel, Switzerland. randa.el-sheikh@ksbl.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5811-9907
Abdelrahman MakramSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2011-8092
László TothUniversity Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Baselland, CH-4101 Bruderholz, Switzerland., Basel, Switzerland.
Michael HirschmannUniversity Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Baselland, CH-4101 Bruderholz, Switzerland., Basel, Switzerland. michael.hirschmann@unibas.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4014-424X
Matthew AdamClinical Infection Research Group, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK; Deanery of Clinical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. matthew.adam@nhs.scot.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeImplant-associated infections (IAIs) remain a major challenge in orthopaedic surgery, causing substantial morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Antimicrobial implant coatings have emerged as a promising preventive strategy, but their comparative clinical benefit remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of antimicrobial coatings in preventing IAIs and to compare their clinical performance to uncoated implants.

methodsA systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched for comparative studies evaluating antimicrobial implant coatings for the prevention of orthopaedic IAIs. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative IAIs, while secondary outcomes included complications, site-specific infections, causative organisms, use of antibiotic prophylaxis, operative time, time to infection, and implant survival. Random-effects network meta-analysis, subgroup analyses, and assessment of publication bias were performed to synthesize and compare treatment effects across coating types.

resultsTwenty-six studies encompassing 3,592 patients were included, of whom 1,576 received coated and 2,016 uncoated implants. Coating technologies included Defensive Antibacterial Coating (DAC) hydrogel, gentamicin, iodine, silver, antibiotic-loaded calcium sulfate, and gold-silver-palladium alloy. Overall, infection rates were lower in coated implants (26.9% vs. 73.1%). Network meta-analysis demonstrated that DAC-hydrogel (OR = 0.10, 95% CI: 0.03–0.28, p < 0.001), gentamicin (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.09–0.80, p = 0.018), iodine (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.12–0.95, p = 0.039), and silver (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48–0.95, p = 0.026) significantly reduced infection risk. Coated implants were also associated with fewer postoperative complications (OR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.09–0.85, p = 0.025), delayed infection onset (IRR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.06–0.95, p = 0.042), and no increase in operative time.

conclusionThere is enough statistical evidence to suggest that antimicrobial implant coatings may reduce implant-associated infections and postoperative complications without increasing operative time. High-dose local antibiotic carriers, such as DAC-hydrogel and gentamicin, are associated with the largest reductions in infection risk, supporting their potential protective role in high-risk procedures.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective AgentsCoated Materials, BiocompatibleProsthesis-Related InfectionsHumansAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective AgentsCoated Materials, BiocompatibleAntimicrobial implant coatingDAC-hydrogelFracture-related infectionGentamicinImplant-associated infectionIodineLocal antibiotic carrierProsthetic joint infectionSilver

Identifiers

PMID41665819
PMCPMC12891049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.