↓ Skip to main content

Antibacterial coating of implants in orthopaedics and trauma: a classification proposal in an evolving panorama

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
235 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
357 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Antibacterial coating of implants in orthopaedics and trauma: a classification proposal in an evolving panorama
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13018-015-0294-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlo Luca Romanò, Sara Scarponi, Enrico Gallazzi, Delia Romanò, Lorenzo Drago

Abstract

Implanted biomaterials play a key role in current success of orthopedic and trauma surgery. However, implant-related infections remain among the leading reasons for failure with high economical and social associated costs. According to the current knowledge, probably the most critical pathogenic event in the development of implant-related infection is biofilm formation, which starts immediately after bacterial adhesion on an implant and effectively protects the microorganisms from the immune system and systemic antibiotics. A rationale, modern prevention of biomaterial-associated infections should then specifically focus on inhibition of both bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation. Nonetheless, currently available prophylactic measures, although partially effective in reducing surgical site infections, are not based on the pathogenesis of biofilm-related infections and unacceptable high rates of septic complications, especially in high-risk patients and procedures, are still reported.In the last decade, several studies have investigated the ability of implant surface modifications to minimize bacterial adhesion, inhibit biofilm formation, and provide effective bacterial killing to protect implanted biomaterials, even if there still is a great discrepancy between proposed and clinically implemented strategies and a lack of a common language to evaluate them.To move a step forward towards a more systematic approach in this promising but complicated field, here we provide a detailed overview and an original classification of the various technologies under study or already in the market. We may distinguish the following: 1. Passive surface finishing/modification (PSM): passive coatings that do not release bactericidal agents to the surrounding tissues, but are aimed at preventing or reducing bacterial adhesion through surface chemistry and/or structure modifications; 2. Active surface finishing/modification (ASM): active coatings that feature pharmacologically active pre-incorporated bactericidal agents; and 3. Local carriers or coatings (LCC): local antibacterial carriers or coatings, biodegradable or not, applied at the time of the surgical procedure, immediately prior or at the same time of the implant and around it. Classifying different technologies may be useful in order to better compare different solutions, to improve the design of validation tests and, hopefully, to improve and speed up the regulatory process in this rapidly evolving field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 357 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 354 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 71 20%
Student > Master 48 13%
Researcher 39 11%
Student > Bachelor 37 10%
Other 19 5%
Other 58 16%
Unknown 85 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 17%
Engineering 60 17%
Materials Science 36 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 5%
Other 54 15%
Unknown 106 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 July 2022.
All research outputs
#6,848,316
of 22,957,478 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#272
of 1,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,716
of 275,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#3
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,957,478 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,391 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,309 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.