Abstract
Aim
Efficacious antibiotic treatment is crucial for managing and preventing orthopedic infections due to their complexity and associated risk of treatment failure. Previous reviews on antibiotic target tissue concentrations have primarily focused on static measurements, which may not accurately reflect the dynamic pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) changes encountered in clinical settings.
This review aimed to summarize the current literature on antibiotic distribution in orthopedically relevant tissues and settings using dynamic sampling methods.
Method
In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, a literature search was conducted with a scientific librarian's assistance. PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched using relevant MeSH terms, entries, and keywords. English-published studies between 2004 and 2023 involving systemic antibiotic administration and dynamic measurements were included. 4467 titles were identified. After title and abstract screening, 77 eligible studies remained.
Results
The studies covered clinical and pre-clinical studies on both healthy and infected tissue. Dynamic measurements were obtained from various tissues including bone, intervertebral discs, joints, muscles, and subcutaneous tissue. Microdialysis was the predominant sampling method (98.70%, 76/77). Antibiotics like cefuroxime, linezolid, and vancomycin were extensively studied. Fluoroquinolones, tetracyclines, and most beta-lactams typically presented good tissue penetration in relation to relevant PK/PD-targets. In contrast, glycopeptides, macrolides, and flucloxacillin exhibited poorer penetration.
Conclusions
This review provides valuable insights of antibiotic distribution in orthopedically relevant target tissues and settings, which may help improve dosing recommendations and treatment outcomes. Our findings are limited to the investigated dosing regimens and administration methods and depend on the chosen PK/PD target. Many antibiotics still require further research to address the significant knowledge gaps, such as the lack of dynamic evaluations for certain antibiotic types and further investigation across various orthopedic settings and tissues.
