ReviewJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2026
Continuous local antibiotic perfusion for spinal infection: a systematic review of reported cases.
Review in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Spinal infections are difficult to cure, especially when implants are present, because implant removal can destabilize the spine. Continuous local antibiotic perfusion (CLAP) delivers high-concentration antibiotic directly to the infected site. We systematically reviewed and descriptively synthesized the reported cases of CLAP for spinal infection. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception through October 1, 2025. Case reports and case series using CLAP for spinal infection were included. The primary outcome was the reoperation- and mortality-free proportion after CLAP, a pragmatic composite surrogate that does not equate to microbiological or clinical cure. Secondary outcomes included time to reported clinical stabilization, recurrence, high-concentration-antibiotic toxicity (renal and hepatic dysfunction), device-related events, and reoperation. Results: Nine studies with 48 patients were included, and most had a surgical site infection (SSI) with instrumentation. A reoperation- and mortality-free course was recorded in 36 patients (75.0%). However, the mean follow-up was only 7.5±4.3 months, and this surrogate may misclassify unresolved or non-operatively managed infection, or patients lost to follow-up, as successes; the estimate should be interpreted with caution. Complete implant retention was reported in 51.1% of patients, while 35.6% required removal. CLAP was given for a mean of 16.1±9.3 days, and reoperation after CLAP occurred in 25.0%. No treatment-related toxicity or device-related problems were reported. Conclusions: Across the reported cases, CLAP was used as one component of multimodal management-with systemic antibiotics, surgical source control, and, in nearly all cases, negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT)-rather than as a stand-alone therapy. Because the evidence is uncontrolled and dominated by a single cohort, this review can describe how CLAP has been applied and what outcomes were reported, but cannot establish its independent effectiveness or safety; controlled prospective studies are needed. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io/rk4g6/).
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.