ArticleCureus2026
Effect of Antibiotic Incorporation on the Porosity of Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) Bone Cement: A Comparative Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) is widely applied in orthopedics. Antibiotic-loaded PMMA has been extensively used, and its mechanical impact, especially porosity, is of widespread importance. We assessed the effects of commercially available and add-on antibiotic PMMA in terms of porosity. The study evaluated seven high-viscosity bone cement groups (S1-S7), with six specimens per group: an antibiotic-free control, three commercially antibiotic-loaded, and three manually antibiotic-loaded with gentamicin, vancomycin, clindamycin, or their combinations. Total porosity percentage was defined as the primary outcome, while open- and closed-pore parameters were secondary outcomes. Porosity was quantitatively evaluated using micro-computed tomography (μ-CT). Raman spectroscopy was used for complementary chemical characterization, and X-ray diffraction (XRD) was used for exploratory comparison of the relative crystalline contribution of the formulations. μ-CT analysis showed that S1, S3, and S7 had the highest mean total and open porosity values, whereas S2, S4, and S6 demonstrated lower mean values. However, no significant between-group differences were detected for open-porosity or total-porosity percentages. Significant differences were identified for closed-pore number, volume, surface area, and percentage. S7 had the highest number of closed pores, while S4 showed a higher closed-pore volume than S2, S3, S5, and S6 (p < 0.05), a higher closed-pore surface area together with S7 than S1, S2, S3, S5, and S6 (p < 0.05), and a higher closed-pore percentage than S3 and S5 (p < 0.01). Raman spectra showed formulation-dependent spectral differences. Exploratory XRD indicated the highest relative crystalline contribution in S1 and the lowest in S7, without a consistent relationship with μ-CT porosity. Conclusively, the tested formulations differed mainly in closed-pore architecture rather than in total or open porosity percentages. Raman spectroscopy provided complementary chemical information, whereas XRD showed descriptive differences in the crystalline contribution of the formulations. The mechanical and clinical relevance of microstructural findings requires further evaluation with mechanical and antibiotic-elution testing.
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.