MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394689437 · doi:10.1016/j.jor.2024.03.040

Local vancomycin administration in Orthopaedic Surgery - A systematic review of comparative studies

2024· review· en· W4394689437 on OpenAlexaff
Darius L. Lameire, Jack Soeder, Hassaan Abdel Khalik, Ellie Pinsker, Nipun Atri, Amir Khoshbin, Lenny Radomski, Amit Atrey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical site infection prevention
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVancomycinMedicineOrthopedic surgerySurgeryArthroplastyStaphylococcus aureus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

; There is still controversy surrounding the routine use of vancomycin locally in primary orthopaedic surgery procedures. Therefore, the aim of this review is to assess how local vancomycin impacts the rates and microbiology of surgical site infections. ; A systematic electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science was carried out for all comparative studies comparing locally applied vancomycin to control for primary orthopaedic surgery procedures published before August 14, 2022. ; A total of 61 studies with 65,671 patients were included for analysis. Forty-six studies used vancomycin powder, 12 studies with grafts soaked in vancomycin, two studies used vancomycin irrigation, and one study administered vancomycin interosseously. There were 15 studies (of 26) in spine surgery, five (of 14) in arthroplasty, ten (of 11) in sports medicine, and two (of five) in trauma surgery that found statistically significant decreases in overall infection rates when applying local vancomycin. Only one study (in spine surgery) found significant increases in infection rates with local vancomycin application. For spine surgery, local vancomycin application had greatest proportions of gram-negative bacteria (40.7 %) isolated compared to S. aureus (42.4 %) in controls. In arthroplasty and trauma surgery, there were increases in the proportions of gram-negative bacteria when vancomycin was added. There were no reported systemic adverse reactions associated with local vancomycin use in any of the studies. ; Applying local vancomycin during primary orthopaedic surgery procedures may reduce the rates of infections in multiple different orthopaedic specialties, particularly in sports medicine. However, given heterogeneity of included studies and breadth of surgical procedures included in this review, caution should be used when applying these findings to specific procedures. Level III. A systematic review of level I – III studies.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of OrthopaedicsSame topicSurgical site infection preventionFrench-language works237,207