Nowadays, S53P4 bioactive glass is indicated as a bone graft substitute in various clinical applications. This review provides an overview of the current published clinical results on indications such as craniofacial procedures, grafting of benign bone tumour defects, instrumental spondylodesis, and the treatment of osteomyelitis. Given the reported results that are based on examinations, such as clinical examinations by the surgeons, radiographs, CT, and MRI images, S53P4 bioactive glass may be beneficial in the various reported applications. Especially in craniofacial reconstructions like mastoid obliteration and orbital floor reconstructions, in grafting bone tumour defects, and in the treatment of osteomyelitis very promising results are obtained. Randomized clinical trials need to be performed in order to determine whether bioactive glass would be able to replace the current golden standard of autologous bone usage or with the use of antibiotic containing PMMA beads (in the case of osteomyelitis).

No abstract

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-Dglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography paired with computed tomography (PET/CT) are two commonly used imaging modalities in the complicated diagnostic workup of osteomyelitis. Diagnosis using these modalities relies on, respectively, anatomical (MRI) and metabolic (PET) signs. With hybrid PET/MRI being recently available, our goal is to qualitatively compare hybrid FDG PET/MRI to FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis and operative planning of chronic osteomyelitis. Methods: Five patients with suspected chronic osteomyelitis in an extremity underwent an 18 F-FDG single-injection/dual-imaging protocol with hybrid PET/CT and hybrid PET/MR. Images and clinical features were evaluated using a standardized assessment method. Standardized uptake value (SUV) measurements were performed on all images. Concordant and discordant findings between PET/MRI and PET/CT were analysed. Results: The consensus diagnoses based on PET/MRI and PET/CT images were identical for all five patients. One discrepancy between PET/MRI and PET/CT was found in the assessment of the features in one patient. PET signal intensities and target-tobackground ratios were on average highest for PET/MRI. On PET/MRI, the location of infection based on FDG uptake could clearly be correlated with certain soft tissue structures (oedema, fluid collection, or muscle), which is paramount for surgical planning. Conclusions: In the presented cases, FDG PET/MRI led to the same diagnosis and provided at least the same diagnostic information as PET/CT. PET/MRI was able to provide additional soft-tissue information for the physician planning treatment. Because of this, we suggest that PET/MRI could be used for osteomyelitis diagnosis and treatment planning.