The treatment of chronic osteomyelitis often
includes surgical debridement and filling the resultant void with antibiotic-loaded
polymethylmethacrylate cement, bone grafts or bone substitutes.
Recently, the use of bioactive glass to treat bone defects in infections
has been reported in a limited series of patients. However, no direct comparison
between this biomaterial and antibiotic-loaded bone substitute has
been performed. In this retrospective study, we compared the safety and efficacy
of surgical debridement and local application of the bioactive glass
S53P4 in a series of 27 patients affected by chronic osteomyelitis
of the long bones (Group A) with two other series, treated respectively
with an antibiotic-loaded hydroxyapatite and calcium sulphate compound
(Group B; n = 27) or a mixture of tricalcium phosphate and an antibiotic-loaded
demineralised bone matrix (Group C; n = 22). Systemic antibiotics
were also used in all groups. After comparable periods of follow-up, the control of infection
was similar in the three groups. In particular, 25 out of 27 (92.6%)
patients of Group A, 24 out of 27 (88.9%) in Group B and 19 out
of 22 (86.3%) in Group C showed no infection recurrence at means
of 21.8 (12 to 36), 22.1 (12 to 36) and 21.5 (12 to 36) months follow-up,
respectively, while Group A showed a reduced wound complication
rate. Our results show that patients treated with a bioactive glass
without local antibiotics achieved similar eradication of infection
and less drainage than those treated with two different antibiotic-loaded
calcium-based bone substitutes. Cite this article:
This review is aimed at clinicians appraising
preclinical trauma studies and researchers investigating compromised bone
healing or novel treatments for fractures. It categorises the clinical
scenarios of poor healing of fractures and attempts to match them
with the appropriate animal models in the literature. We performed an extensive literature search of animal models
of long bone fracture repair/nonunion and grouped the resulting
studies according to the clinical scenario they were attempting
to reflect; we then scrutinised them for their reliability and accuracy
in reproducing that clinical scenario. Models for normal fracture repair (primary and secondary), delayed
union, nonunion (atrophic and hypertrophic), segmental defects and
fractures at risk of impaired healing were identified. Their accuracy
in reflecting the clinical scenario ranged greatly and the reliability
of reproducing the scenario ranged from 100% to 40%. It is vital to know the limitations and success of each model
when considering its application.
