Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 13, Issue 6 | Pages 306 - 314
19 Jun 2024
Wu B Su J Zhang Z Zeng J Fang X Li W Zhang W Huang Z

Aims

To explore the clinical efficacy of using two different types of articulating spacers in two-stage revision for chronic knee periprosthetic joint infection (kPJI).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of 50 chronic kPJI patients treated with two types of articulating spacers between January 2014 and March 2022 was conducted. The clinical outcomes and functional status of the different articulating spacers were compared. Overall, 17 patients were treated with prosthetic spacers (prosthetic group (PG)), and 33 patients were treated with cement spacers (cement group (CG)). The CG had a longer mean follow-up period (46.67 months (SD 26.61)) than the PG (24.82 months (SD 16.46); p = 0.001).


Aims

This study investigated vancomycin-microbubbles (Vm-MBs) and meropenem (Mp)-MBs with ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction (UTMD) to disrupt biofilms and improve bactericidal efficiency, providing a new and promising strategy for the treatment of device-related infections (DRIs).

Methods

A film hydration method was used to prepare Vm-MBs and Mp-MBs and examine their characterization. Biofilms of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Escherichia coli were treated with different groups. Biofilm biomass differences were determined by staining. Thickness and bacterial viability were observed with confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). Colony counts were determined by plate-counting. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) observed bacterial morphology.


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.


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.