Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 5 of 5
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 12, Issue 10 | Pages 644 - 653
10 Oct 2023
Hinz N Butscheidt S Jandl NM Rohde H Keller J Beil FT Hubert J Rolvien T

Aims

The management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a major challenge in orthopaedic surgery. In this study, we aimed to characterize the local bone microstructure and metabolism in a clinical cohort of patients with chronic PJI.

Methods

Periprosthetic femoral trabecular bone specimens were obtained from patients suffering from chronic PJI of the hip and knee (n = 20). Microbiological analysis was performed on preoperative joint aspirates and tissue specimens obtained during revision surgery. Microstructural and cellular bone parameters were analyzed in bone specimens by histomorphometry on undecalcified sections complemented by tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase immunohistochemistry. Data were compared with control specimens obtained during primary arthroplasty (n = 20) and aseptic revision (n = 20).


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 11, Issue 9 | Pages 608 - 618
7 Sep 2022
Sigmund IK Luger M Windhager R McNally MA

Aims

This study evaluated the definitions developed by the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) 2021, the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2018, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 2013, for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

Methods

In this single-centre, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data, patients with an indicated revision surgery after a total hip or knee arthroplasty were included between 2015 and 2020. A standardized diagnostic workup was performed, identifying the components of the EBJIS, ICM, and IDSA criteria in each patient.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 9, Issue 2 | Pages 79 - 81
1 Feb 2020
Alt V Rupp M Langer M Baumann F Trampuz A

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res. 2020;9(2):79–81.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 9, Issue 2 | Pages 77 - 78
1 Feb 2020
Alt V Rupp M Langer M Baumann F Trampuz A

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res. 2020;9(2):77–78.


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.