Aims. High-energy injuries can result in multiple complications, the most prevalent being infection. Vancomycin powder has been used with increasing frequency in orthopaedic trauma given its success in reducing infection following spine surgery. Additionally, large, traumatic injuries require wound coverage and management by dressings such as negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). NPWT has been shown to decrease the ability of antibiotic cement beads to reduce infection, but its effect on antibiotic powder is not known. The goal of this study was to determine if NPWT reduces the efficacy of topically applied antibiotic powder. Methods. Complex musculoskeletal wounds were created in goats and inoculated with a strain of Staphylococcus aureus modified to emit light. Six hours after contaminating the wounds, imaging, irrigation, and debridement and treatment application were performed. Animals received either vancomycin powder with a wound pouch dressing or vancomycin powder with NPWT. Results. There were no differences in eradication of bacteria when vancomycin powder was used in combination with NPWT (4.5% of baseline) compared to vancomycin powder with a wound pouch dressing (1.7% of baseline) (p = 0.986), even though approximately 50% of the vancomycin was recovered in the NPWT exudate canister. Conclusion. The antimicrobial efficacy of the vancomycin powder was not diminished by the application of NPWT. These topical and locally applied therapies are potentially effective tools that can provide quick, simple treatments to prevent infection while providing coverage. By reducing the occurrence of infection, the recovery is shortened, leading to an overall improvement in quality of life. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(2):149–155

Aims

The efficacy and safety of intrawound vancomycin for preventing surgical site infection in primary hip and knee arthroplasty is uncertain.

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.