MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417362205 · doi:10.1002/jor.70122

Polyethylene Shows No Concerning Evidence of Material Changes or Stress Cracking After Exposure to Chlorhexidine Gluconate and Povidone‐Iodine Irrigation Solutions

2025· article· en· W4417362205 on OpenAlexafffund
Hassaan Abdel Khalik, Moyukh O Chakrabarti, Heera S. Marway, Michael R. Thompson, Laura Puri, Isabelle Tate, Thomas J. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Research® · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesJuravinski HospitalMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsEnvironmental stress crackingChlorhexidine gluconatePolyethyleneSignificant differenceAdhesiveCrackingLow-density polyethyleneIrrigation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chlorhexidine-gluconate (CHG) and povidone-iodine (PI) are used as irrigation solutions to prevent infection in arthroplasty. This study to aimed to determine whether exposing ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) implants to different concentrations of CHG or PI solutions would result in material or mechanical changes. This in vitro study assessed 30 specimens at low and high concentrations of povidone-iodine (0.35%, 10%), chlorhexidine-gluconate (0.05%, 4%) and ultrapure water. A Bell test was conducted on 25 specimens, followed by gross and microscopic assessment for cracking and/or discoloration. Five additional specimens underwent dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA). No gross evidence of environmental stress cracking was found across all irrigation solutions and concentrations. One specimen (submerged in 0.35% povidone-iodine) demonstrated gross non-localized discoloration. Under 200× magnification, there was a significant difference in the diameter of localized discoloration at the notched tip (H(4) = 18.18, p = 0.001). Significant differences between 10% PI and water (p = 0.029), and 0.35% PI and water (p = 0.001) solutions were noted. Though statistically significant, differences in discoloration are unlikely of clinical relevance. Notch depth did not vary across groups (p = 0.625). DMA demonstrated a significant difference across groups (p = 0.0035) with post hoc pairwise comparisons demonstrating a significant difference between 4% CHG and water (p = 0.035). Analysis of viscoelasticity demonstrated minor decreases in the relaxation time of the polymer, with the exception of 4% CHG that had an increased relaxation time and a second relaxation mode. This study demonstrates no concerning evidence of material changes that impact the integrity of UHMWPE secondary to CHG or PI irrigation solutions. STATEMENT OF CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Findings of this study reassure surgeons that the use of chlorhexidine gluconate and povidone-iodine as irrigation solutions in total joint arthroplasty is most likely a safe practice. To bring these findings from bench to bedside, future prospective studies assessing the efficacy of irrigation solutions in preventing prosthetic joint infection in total joint arthroplasty may consider additional follow-up studies assessing long-term implant survivorship.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Research®Same topicOrthopedic Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207