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.
Preclinical data showed poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) loaded with microsilver to be effective against a variety of bacteria. The purpose of this study was to assess patient safety of PMMA spacers with microsilver in prosthetic hip infections in a prospective cohort study. A total of 12 patients with prosthetic hip infections were included for a three-stage revision procedure. All patients received either a gentamicin-PMMA spacer (80 g to 160 g PMMA depending on hip joint dimension) with additional loading of 1% (w/w) of microsilver (0.8 g to 1.6 g per spacer) at surgery 1 followed by a gentamicin-PMMA spacer without microsilver at surgery 2 or vice versa. Implantation of the revision prosthesis was carried out at surgery 3.Objectives
Methods
Periprosthetic joint infection following joint arthroplasty surgery is one of the most feared complications. The key to successful revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infections, regardless of treatment strategy, is a thorough deep debridement. In an attempt to limit antimicrobial and disinfectant use, there has been increasing interest in the use of acetic acid as an adjunct to debridement in the management of periprosthetic joint infections. However, its effectiveness in the eradication of established biofilms following clinically relevant treatment times has not been established. Using an Using a methicillin-sensitive Objectives
Materials and Methods
