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:
Most proximal humeral fractures are stable injuries of the ageing population, and can be successfully treated non-operatively. The management of the smaller number of more complex displaced fractures is more controversial and new fixation techniques have greatly increased the range of fractures that may benefit from surgery. This article explores current concepts in the classification and clinical aspects of these injuries, reviewing the indications, innovations and outcomes for the most common methods of treatment.
Despite advances in the prevention and treatment of osteoporotic fractures, their prevalence continues to increase. Their operative treatment remains a challenge for the surgeon, often with unpredictable outcomes. This review highlights the current aspects of management of these fractures and focuses on advances in implant design and surgical technique.
Biochemical markers of bone-turnover have long been used to complement the radiological assessment of patients with metabolic bone disease. Their implementation in daily clinical practice has been helpful in the understanding of the pathogenesis of osteoporosis, the selection of the optimal dose and the understanding of the progression of the onset and resolution of treatment. Since they are derived from both cortical and trabecular bone, they reflect the metabolic activity of the entire skeleton rather than that of individual cells or the process of mineralisation. Quantitative changes in skeletal-turnover can be assessed easily and non-invasively by the measurement of bone-turnover markers. They are commonly subdivided into three categories; 1) bone-resorption markers, 2) osteoclast regulatory proteins and 3) bone-formation markers. Because of the rapidly accumulating new knowledge of bone matrix biochemistry, attempts have been made to use them in the interpretation and characterisation of various stages of the healing of fractures. Early knowledge of the individual progress of a fracture could help to avoid delayed or nonunion by enabling modification of the host’s biological response. The levels of bone-turnover markers vary throughout the course of fracture repair with their rates of change being dependent on the size of the fracture and the time that it will take to heal. However, their short-term biological variability, the relatively low bone specificity exerted, given that the production and destruction of collagen is not limited to bone, as well as the influence of the host’s metabolism on their concentration, produce considerable intra- and inter-individual variability in their interpretation. Despite this, the possible role of bone-turnover markers in the assessment of progression to union, the risks of delayed or nonunion and the impact of innovations to accelerate fracture healing must not be ignored.
