Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 13, Issue 1 | Pages 40 - 51
11 Jan 2024
Lin J Suo J Bao B Wei H Gao T Zhu H Zheng X

Aims

To investigate the efficacy of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid-normal saline (EDTA-NS) in dispersing biofilms and reducing bacterial infections.

Methods

EDTA-NS solutions were irrigated at different durations (1, 5, 10, and 30 minutes) and concentrations (1, 2, 5, 10, and 50 mM) to disrupt Staphylococcus aureus biofilms on Matrigel-coated glass and two materials widely used in orthopaedic implants (Ti-6Al-4V and highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE)). To assess the efficacy of biofilm dispersion, crystal violet staining biofilm assay and colony counting after sonification and culturing were performed. The results were further confirmed and visualized by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). We then investigated the efficacies of EDTA-NS irrigation in vivo in rat and pig models of biofilm-associated infection.


Aims

In wound irrigation, 1 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) is more efficacious than normal saline (NS) in removing bacteria from a contaminated wound. However, the optimal EDTA concentration remains unknown for different animal wound models.

Methods

The cell toxicity of different concentrations of EDTA dissolved in NS (EDTA-NS) was assessed by Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8). Various concentrations of EDTA-NS irrigation solution were compared in three female Sprague-Dawley rat models: 1) a skin defect; 2) a bone exposed; and 3) a wound with an intra-articular implant. All three models were contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus or Escherichia coli. EDTA was dissolved at a concentration of 0 (as control), 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 50, and 100 mM in sterile NS. Samples were collected from the wounds and cultured. The bacterial culture-positive rate (colony formation) and infection rate (pus formation) of each treatment group were compared after irrigation and debridement.


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.