Objective. In the present study, we aimed to assess whether gelatin/β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) composite porous scaffolds could be used as a local controlled release system for vancomycin. We also investigated the efficiency of the scaffolds in eliminating infections and repairing osteomyelitis defects in rabbits. Methods. The gelatin scaffolds containing differing amounts of of β-TCP (0%, 10%, 30% and 50%) were prepared for controlled release of vancomycin and were labelled G-TCP0, G-TCP1, G-TCP3 and G-TCP5, respectively. The Kirby-Bauer method was used to examine the release profile. Chronic osteomyelitis models of rabbits were established. After thorough debridement, the osteomyelitis defects were implanted with the scaffolds. Radiographs and histological examinations were carried out to investigate the efficiency of eliminating infections and repairing bone defects. Results. The prepared gelatin/β-TCP scaffolds exhibited a homogeneously interconnected 3D porous structure. The G-TCP0 scaffold exhibited the longest duration of vancomycin release with a release duration of eight weeks. With the increase of β-TCP contents, the release duration of the β-TCP-containing composite scaffolds was decreased. The complete release of vancomycin from the G-TCP5 scaffold was achieved within three weeks. In the treatment of osteomyelitis defects in rabbits, the G-TCP3 scaffold showed the most efficacious performance in eliminating infections and repairing bone defects. Conclusions. The composite scaffolds could achieve local therapeutic drug levels over an extended duration. The G-TCP3 scaffold possessed the optimal porosity, interconnection and controlled release performance. Therefore, this scaffold could potentially be used in the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis defects. Cite this article: J. Zhou, X. G. Zhou, J. W. Wang, H. Zhou, J. Dong. Treatment of osteomyelitis defects by a vancomycin-loaded gelatin/β-tricalcium phosphate composite scaffold. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:46–57. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.71.BJR-2017-0129.R2

Aims

Here we used a mature seven-day biofilm model of Staphylococcus aureus, exposed to antibiotics up to an additional seven days, to establish the effectiveness of either mechanical cleaning or antibiotics or non-contact induction heating, and which combinations could eradicate S. aureus in mature biofilms.

Implant-related infection is one of the leading reasons for failure in orthopaedics and trauma, and results in high social and economic costs. Various antibacterial coating technologies have proven to be safe and effective both in preclinical and clinical studies, with post-surgical implant-related infections reduced by 90% in some cases, depending on the type of coating and experimental setup used. Economic assessment may enable the cost-to-benefit profile of any given antibacterial coating to be defined, based on the expected infection rate with and without the coating, the cost of the infection management, and the cost of the coating. After reviewing the latest evidence on the available antibacterial coatings, we quantified the impact caused by delaying their large-scale application. Considering only joint arthroplasties, our calculations indicated that for an antibacterial coating, with a final user’s cost price of €600 and able to reduce post-surgical infection by 80%, each year of delay to its large-scale application would cause an estimated 35 200 new cases of post-surgical infection in Europe, equating to additional hospital costs of approximately €440 million per year. An adequate reimbursement policy for antibacterial coatings may benefit patients, healthcare systems, and related research, as could faster and more affordable regulatory pathways for the technologies still in the pipeline. This could significantly reduce the social and economic burden of implant-related infections in orthopaedics and trauma.

Cite this article: C. L. Romanò, H. Tsuchiya, I. Morelli, A. G. Battaglia, L. Drago. Antibacterial coating of implants: are we missing something? Bone Joint Res 2019;8:199–206. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.85.BJR-2018-0316.