Implanted biomaterials play a key role in current success of orthopedic and trauma surgery. However, implant-related infections remain among the leading reasons for failure with high economical and social associated costs. According to the current knowledge, probably the most critical pathogenic event in the development of implant-related infection is biofilm formation, which starts immediately after bacterial adhesion on an implant and effectively protects the microorganisms from the immune system and systemic antibiotics. A rationale, modern prevention of biomaterial-associated infections should then specifically focus on inhibition of both bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation. Nonetheless, currently available prophylactic measures, although partially effective in reducing surgical site infections, are not based on the pathogenesis of biofilm-related infections and unacceptable high rates of septic complications, especially in high-risk patients and procedures, are still reported.In the last decade, several studies have investigated the ability of implant surface modifications to minimize bacterial adhesion, inhibit biofilm formation, and provide effective bacterial killing to protect implanted biomaterials, even if there still is a great discrepancy between proposed and clinically implemented strategies and a lack of a common language to evaluate them.To move a step forward towards a more systematic approach in this promising but complicated field, here we provide a detailed overview and an original classification of the various technologies under study or already in the market. We may distinguish the following: 1. Passive surface finishing/modification (PSM): passive coatings that do not release bactericidal agents to the surrounding tissues, but are aimed at preventing or reducing bacterial adhesion through surface chemistry and/or structure modifications; 2. Active surface finishing/modification (ASM): active coatings that feature pharmacologically active pre-incorporated bactericidal agents; and 3. Local carriers or coatings (LCC): local antibacterial carriers or coatings, biodegradable or not, applied at the time of the surgical procedure, immediately prior or at the same time of the implant and around it. Classifying different technologies may be useful in order to better compare different solutions, to improve the design of validation tests and, hopefully, to improve and speed up the regulatory process in this rapidly evolving field.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundAutologous platelet concentrates (PCs) have been extensively used in a variety of medical fields to promote soft and hard tissue regeneration. The significance behind their use lies in the abundance of growth factors in platelets α-granules that promotes wound healing. In addition, antibacterial properties of PCs against various bacteria have been recently pointed out. In this study, the antimicrobial effect of pure platelet-rich plasma (P-PRP) was evaluated against oral cavity microorganisms such as Enterococcus faecalis, Candida albicans, Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus oralis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Blood samples were obtained from 17 patients who underwent oral surgery procedures involving the use of P-PRP. The antibacterial activity of P-PRP, evaluated as the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), was determined through the microdilution twofold serial method.ResultsP-PRP inhibited the growth of Enterococcus faecalis, Candida albicans, Streptococcus agalactiae and Streptococcus oralis, but not of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains.ConclusionsP-PRP is a potentially useful substance in the fight against postoperative infections. This might represent a valuable property in adjunct to the enhancement of tissue regeneration.

IV.

BackgroundImplant-related infections represent one of the most severe complications in orthopaedics. A fast-resorbable, antibacterial-loaded hydrogel may reduce or prevent bacterial colonization and biofilm formation of implanted biomaterials.Questions/purposesWe asked: (1) Is a fast-resorbable hydrogel able to deliver antibacterial compounds in vitro? (2) Can a hydrogel (alone or antibacterial-loaded) coating on implants reduce bacterial colonization? And (3) is intraoperative coating feasible and resistant to press-fit implant insertion?MethodsWe tested the ability of Disposable Antibacterial Coating (DAC) hydrogel (Novagenit Srl, Mezzolombardo, Italy) to deliver antibacterial agents using spectrophotometry and a microbiologic assay. Antibacterial and antibiofilm activity were determined by broth microdilution and a crystal violet assay, respectively. Coating resistance to press-fit insertion was tested in rabbit tibias and human femurs.ResultsComplete release of all tested antibacterial compounds was observed in less than 96 hours. Bactericidal and antibiofilm effect of DAC hydrogel in combination with various antibacterials was shown in vitro. Approximately 80% of the hydrogel coating was retrieved on the implant after press-fit insertion.ConclusionsImplant coating with an antibacterial-loaded hydrogel reduces bacterial colonization and biofilm formation in vitro.Clinical Relevance A fast-resorbable, antibacterial-loaded hydrogel coating may help prevent implant-related infections in orthopaedics. However, further validation in animal models and properly controlled human studies is required.

No abstract

BackgroundOutcome data on two-stage revision surgery for deep infection after septic hip arthritis are limited and inconsistent. This study presents the medium-term results of a new, standardized two-stage arthroplasty with preformed hip spacers and cementless implants in a consecutive series of adult patients with septic arthritis of the hip treated according to a same protocol.MethodsNineteen patients (20 hips) were enrolled in this prospective, non-randomized cohort study between 2000 and 2008. The first stage comprised femoral head resection, debridement, and insertion of a preformed, commercially available, antibiotic-loaded cement hip spacer. After eradication of infection, a cementless total hip arthroplasty was implanted in the second stage. Patients were assessed for infection recurrence, pain (visual analog scale [VAS]) and hip joint function (Harris Hip score).ResultsThe mean time between first diagnosis of infection and revision surgery was 5.8 ± 9.0 months; the average duration of follow up was 56.6 (range, 24 - 104) months; all 20 hips were successfully converted to prosthesis an average 22 ± 5.1 weeks after spacer implantation. Reinfection after total hip joint replacement occurred in 1 patient. The mean VAS pain score improved from 48 (range, 35 - 84) pre-operatively to 18 (range, 0 - 38) prior to spacer removal and to 8 (range, 0 - 15) at the last follow-up assessment after prosthesis implantation. The average Harris Hip score improved from 27.5 before surgery to 61.8 between the two stages to 92.3 at the final follow-up assessment.ConclusionsSatisfactory outcomes can be obtained with two-stage revision hip arthroplasty using preformed spacers and cementless implants for prosthetic hip joint infections of various etiologies.