Local vancomycin administration in Orthopaedic Surgery - A systematic review of comparative studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
; 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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it