header advert
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:

Aims. Treatment of chronic osteomyelitis (COM) for young patients remains a challenge. Large bone deficiencies secondary to COM can be treated using induced membrane technique (IMT). However, it is unclear which type of bone graft is optimal. The goal of the study was to determine the clinical effectiveness of bone marrow concentrator modified allograft (BMCA) versus bone marrow aspirate mixed allograft (BMAA) for children with COM of long bones. Methods. Between January 2013 and December 2017, 26 young patients with COM were enrolled. Different bone grafts were applied to repair bone defects secondary to IMT procedure for infection eradication. Group BMCA was administered BMCA while Group BMAA was given BMAA. The results of this case-control study were retrospectively analyzed. Results. Patient infection in both groups was eradicated after IMT surgery. As for reconstruction surgery, no substantial changes in the operative period (p = 0.852), intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.573), or length of hospital stay (p = 0.362) were found between the two groups. All patients were monitored for 12 to 60 months. The median time to bone healing was 4.0 months (interquartile range (IQR) 3.0 to 5.0; range 3 to 7) and 5.0 months (IQR 4.0 to 7.0; range 3 to 10) in Groups BMCA and BMAA, respectively. The time to heal in Group BMCA versus Group BMAA was substantially lower (p = 0.024). Conclusion. IMT with BMCA or BMAA may attain healing in large bone defects secondary to COM in children. The bone healing time was significantly shorter for BMCA, indicating that this could be considered as a new strategy for bone defect after COM treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(1):31–40


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.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 7, Issue 7 | Pages 447 - 456
1 Jul 2018
Morgenstern M Vallejo A McNally MA Moriarty TF Ferguson JY Nijs S Metsemakers W

Objectives

As well as debridement and irrigation, soft-tissue coverage, and osseous stabilization, systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is considered the benchmark in the management of open fractures and considerably reduces the risk of subsequent fracture-related infections (FRI). The direct application of antibiotics in the surgical field (local antibiotics) has been used for decades as additional prophylaxis in open fractures, although definitive evidence confirming a beneficial effect is scarce. The purpose of the present study was to review the clinical evidence regarding the effect of prophylactic application of local antibiotics in open limb fractures.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Cohort studies investigating the effect of additional local antibiotic prophylaxis compared with systemic prophylaxis alone in the management of open fractures were included and the data were pooled in a meta-analysis.