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:
The pathophysiology of intervertebral disc degeneration has been extensively studied. Various factors have been suggested as influencing its aetiology, including mechanical factors, such as compressive loading, shear stress and vibration, as well as ageing, genetic, systemic and toxic factors, which can lead to degeneration of the disc through biochemical reactions. How are these factors linked? What is their individual importance? There is no clear evidence indicating whether ageing in the presence of repetitive injury or repetitive injury in the absence of ageing plays a greater role in the degenerative process. Mechanical factors can trigger biochemical reactions which, in turn, may promote the normal biological changes of ageing, which can also be accelerated by genetic factors. Degradation of the molecular structure of the disc during ageing renders it more susceptible to superimposed mechanical injuries. This review supports the theory that degeneration of the disc has a complex multifactorial aetiology. Which factors initiate the events in the degenerative cascade is a question that remains unanswered, but most evidence points to an age-related process influenced primarily by mechanical and genetic factors.
