Incorporation of large amounts of gentamicin sulphate into acrylic bone cement: Effect on handling and mechanical properties, antibiotic release, and biofilm formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bacterial infection remains a significant complication following total joint replacement. If infection is suspected when revision surgery is being performed, a large dose of antibiotic, usually gentamicin sulphate, is often blended with the acrylic bone cement powder in an attempt to reduce the risk of recurrent infection. In this in-vitro study the effect of small and large doses of gentamicin sulphate on the handling and mechanical properties of the cement, gentamicin release from the cement, and in-vitro biofilm formation by clinical Staphylococcus spp. isolates on the cement was determined. An increase in gentamicin loading of 1, 2, 3, or 4 g, in a cement powder mass of 40 g, resulted in a significant decrease in the compressive and four-point bending strength, but a significant increase in the amount of gentamicin released over a 72h period. When overt infection was modelled, using Staphylococcus spp. clinical isolates at an inoculum of 1 x 10(7) colony-forming units/ml, an increase in the amount of gentamicin (1, 2, 3, or 4 g) added to 40 g of poly(methyl methacrylate) cement resulted in an initial decrease in bacterial colonization but this beneficial effect was no longer apparent by 72 h, with the bacterial strains forming biofilms on the cements despite the release of high levels of gentamicin. The findings suggest that orthopaedic surgeons should carefully consider the clinical consequences of blending large doses (1 g or more per 40 g of poly(methyl methacrylate)) of gentamicin into Palacos R bone cement for use in revision surgery as the increased gentamicin loading does not prevent bacterial biofilm formation and the effect on the mechanical properties could be important to the longevity of the prosthetic joint.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".