Aims. Demineralised bone matrix (DBM) is rarely used for the local delivery of prophylactic antibiotics. Our aim, in this study, was to show that a graft with a bioactive glass and DBM combination, which is currently available for clinical use, can be loaded with tobramycin and release levels of antibiotic greater than the minimum inhibitory concentration for Staphylococcus aureus without interfering with the bone healing properties of the graft, thus protecting the graft and surrounding tissues from infection. Materials and Methods. Antibiotic was loaded into a graft and subsequently evaluated for drug elution kinetics and the inhibition of bacterial growth. A rat femoral condylar plug model was used to determine the effect of the graft, loaded with antibiotic, on bone healing. Results. We found that tobramycin loaded into a graft composed of bioglass and DBM eluted antibiotic above the minimum inhibitory concentration for three days in vitro. It was also found that the antibiotic loaded into the graft produced no adverse effects on the bone healing properties of the DBM at a lower level of antibiotic. Conclusion. This antibiotic-loaded bone void filler may represent a promising option for the delivery of local antibiotics in orthopaedic surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1126–31

Objectives

The aim of this systematic literature review was to assess the clinical level of evidence of commercially available demineralised bone matrix (DBM) products for their use in trauma and orthopaedic related surgery.

We reviewed 59 bone graft substitutes marketed by 17 companies currently available for implantation in the United Kingdom, with the aim of assessing the peer-reviewed literature to facilitate informed decision-making regarding their use in clinical practice. After critical analysis of the literature, only 22 products (37%) had any clinical data. Norian SRS (Synthes), Vitoss (Orthovita), Cortoss (Orthovita) and Alpha-BSM (Etex) had Level I evidence. We question the need for so many different products, especially with limited published clinical evidence for their efficacy, and conclude that there is a considerable need for further prospective randomised trials to facilitate informed decision-making with regard to the use of current and future bone graft substitutes in clinical practice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:583–97.