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:
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains an immediate
threat to patients following total hip and knee replacement. While
there is a strong consensus that steps should be taken to minimise
the risk to patients by utilising some forms of prophylaxis for
the vast majority of patients, the methods utilised have been extremely
variable. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been published
by various professional organisations for over 25 years to provide recommendations
to standardise VTE prophylaxis. Historically, these recommendations
have varied widely depending in underlying assumptions, goals, and
methodology of the various groups. This effort has previously been
exemplified by the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and
the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). The former
group of medical specialists targeted minimising venographically
proven deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (the vast majority of which are
asymptomatic) as their primary goal prior to 2012. The latter group of
surgeons targeted minimising symptomatic VTE. As a result prior
to 2012, the recommendations of the two groups were widely divergent.
In the past year, both groups have reassessed the current literature
with the principal goals of minimising symptomatic VTE events and
bleeding complications. As a result, for the first time the CPGs
of these two major subspecialty organisations are in close agreement.
