Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 9 of 9
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 103-B, Issue 3 | Pages 423 - 429
1 Mar 2021
Diez-Escudero A Hailer NP

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most dreaded complications after arthroplasty surgery; thus numerous approaches have been undertaken to equip metal surfaces with antibacterial properties. Due to its antimicrobial effects, silver is a promising coating for metallic surfaces, and several types of silver-coated arthroplasty implants are in clinical use today. However, silver can also exert toxic effects on eukaryotic cells both in the immediate vicinity of the coated implants and systemically. In most clinically-used implants, silver coatings are applied on bulk components that are not in direct contact with bone, such as in partial or total long bone arthroplasties used in tumour or complex revision surgery. These implants differ considerably in the coating method, total silver content, and silver release rates. Safety issues, such as the occurrence of argyria, have been a cause for concern, and the efficacy of silver coatings in terms of preventing PJI is also controversial. The application of silver coatings is uncommon on parts of implants intended for cementless fixation in host bone, but this option might be highly desirable since the modification of implant surfaces in order to improve osteoconductivity can also increase bacterial adhesion. Therefore, an optimal silver content that inhibits bacterial colonization while maintaining osteoconductivity is crucial if silver were to be applied as a coating on parts intended for bone contact. This review summarizes the different methods used to apply silver coatings to arthroplasty components, with a focus on the amount and duration of silver release from the different coatings; the available experience with silver-coated implants that are in clinical use today; and future strategies to balance the effects of silver on bacteria and eukaryotic cells, and to develop silver-coated titanium components suitable for bone ingrowth.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):423–429.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 103-B, Issue 3 | Pages 522 - 529
1 Mar 2021
Nichol T Callaghan J Townsend R Stockley I Hatton PV Le Maitre C Smith TJ Akid R

Aims

The aim of this study was to develop a single-layer hybrid organic-inorganic sol-gel coating that is capable of a controlled antibiotic release for cementless hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated titanium orthopaedic prostheses.

Methods

Coatings containing gentamicin at a concentration of 1.25% weight/volume (wt/vol), similar to that found in commercially available antibiotic-loaded bone cement, were prepared and tested in the laboratory for: kinetics of antibiotic release; activity against planktonic and biofilm bacterial cultures; biocompatibility with cultured mammalian cells; and physical bonding to the material (n = 3 in all tests). The sol-gel coatings and controls were then tested in vivo in a small animal healing model (four materials tested; n = 6 per material), and applied to the surface of commercially pure HA-coated titanium rods.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 8, Issue 5 | Pages 4 - 10
1 Oct 2019
Tsoi K Samuel A Jeys LM Ashford RU Gregory JJ


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 8, Issue 8 | Pages 387 - 396
1 Aug 2019
Alt V Rupp M Lemberger K Bechert T Konradt T Steinrücke P Schnettler R Söder S Ascherl R

Objectives

Preclinical data showed poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) loaded with microsilver to be effective against a variety of bacteria. The purpose of this study was to assess patient safety of PMMA spacers with microsilver in prosthetic hip infections in a prospective cohort study.

Methods

A total of 12 patients with prosthetic hip infections were included for a three-stage revision procedure. All patients received either a gentamicin-PMMA spacer (80 g to 160 g PMMA depending on hip joint dimension) with additional loading of 1% (w/w) of microsilver (0.8 g to 1.6 g per spacer) at surgery 1 followed by a gentamicin-PMMA spacer without microsilver at surgery 2 or vice versa. Implantation of the revision prosthesis was carried out at surgery 3.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 8, Issue 5 | Pages 199 - 206
1 May 2019
Romanò CL Tsuchiya H Morelli I Battaglia AG Drago L

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.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 1_Supple_A | Pages 9 - 16
1 Jan 2018
Su EP Justin DF Pratt CR Sarin VK Nguyen VS Oh S Jin S

The development and pre-clinical evaluation of nano-texturised, biomimetic, surfaces of titanium (Ti) implants treated with titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanotube arrays is reviewed. In vitro and in vivo evaluations show that TiO2 nanotubes on Ti surfaces positively affect the osseointegration, cell differentiation, mineralisation, and anti-microbial properties. This surface treatment can be superimposed onto existing macro and micro porous Ti implants creating a surface texture that also interacts with cells at the nano level. Histology and mechanical pull-out testing of specimens in rabbits indicate that TiO2 nanotubes improves bone bonding nine-fold (p = 0.008). The rate of mineralisation associated with TiO2 nanotube surfaces is about three times that of non-treated Ti surfaces. In addition to improved osseointegration properties, TiO2 nanotubes reduce the initial adhesion and colonisation of Staphylococcus epidermidis. Collectively, the properties of Ti implant surfaces enhanced with TiO2 nanotubes show great promise.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B(1 Supple A):9–16.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1162 - 1169
1 Sep 2015
George DA Gant V Haddad FS

The number of arthroplasties being undertaken is expected to grow year on year, and periprosthetic joint infections will be an increasing socioeconomic burden. The challenge to prevent and eradicate these infections has resulted in the emergence of several new strategies, which are discussed in this review.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1162–9.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 5 | Pages 582 - 589
1 May 2015
Brennan SA Ní Fhoghlú C Devitt BM O’Mahony FJ Brabazon D Walsh A

Implant-associated infection is a major source of morbidity in orthopaedic surgery. There has been extensive research into the development of materials that prevent biofilm formation, and hence, reduce the risk of infection. Silver nanoparticle technology is receiving much interest in the field of orthopaedics for its antimicrobial properties, and the results of studies to date are encouraging. Antimicrobial effects have been seen when silver nanoparticles are used in trauma implants, tumour prostheses, bone cement, and also when combined with hydroxyapatite coatings. Although there are promising results with in vitro and in vivo studies, the number of clinical studies remains small. Future studies will be required to explore further the possible side effects associated with silver nanoparticles, to ensure their use in an effective and biocompatible manner. Here we present a review of the current literature relating to the production of nanosilver for medical use, and its orthopaedic applications.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:582–9.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 2 | Pages 252 - 257
1 Feb 2015
Wafa H Grimer RJ Reddy K Jeys L Abudu A Carter SR Tillman RM

We conducted a case-control study to examine the merit of silver-coated tumour prostheses. We reviewed 85 patients with Agluna-treated (silver-coated) tumour implants treated between 2006 and 2011 and matched them with 85 control patients treated between 2001 and 2011 with identical, but uncoated, tumour prostheses.

In all, 106 men and 64 women with a mean age of 42.2 years (18.4 to 90.4) were included in the study. There were 50 primary reconstructions (29.4%); 79 one-stage revisions (46.5%) and 41 two-stage revisions for infection (24.1%).

The overall post-operative infection rate of the silver-coated group was 11.8% compared with 22.4% for the control group (p = 0.033, chi-square test). A total of seven of the ten infected prostheses in the silver-coated group were treated successfully with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention compared with only six of the 19 patients (31.6%) in the control group (p = 0.048, chi-square test). Three patients in the silver-coated group (3.5%) and 13 controls (15.3%) had chronic periprosthetic infection (p = 0.009, chi-square test).

The overall success rates in controlling infection by two-stage revision in the silver-coated group was 85% (17/20) compared with 57.1% (12/21) in the control group (p = 0.05, chi-square test). The Agluna-treated endoprostheses were associated with a lower rate of early periprosthetic infection. These silver-treated implants were particularly useful in two-stage revisions for infection and in those patients with incidental positive cultures at the time of implantation of the prosthesis.

Debridement with antibiotic treatment and retention of the implant appeared to be more successful with silver-coated implants.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:252–7.