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:
