Iodine-Supported Hip Implants: Short Term Clinical Results

Kabata, Tamon; Maeda, Takeshi; Kajino, Yoshitomo; Hara, Kazuhiro; Inoue, Dai; Yamamoto, Takashi; Takagi, Tomoharu; Ohmori, Takaaki; Tsuchiya, Hiroyuki

doi:10.1155/2015/368124

Cited by 30 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An innovative technology using iodine to produce porous anodic oxide implant surfaces with the antiseptic properties of iodine was studied in a prospective uncontrolled cohort study for both prophylaxis in high risk patients, and for treatment in confirmed MSK infection cases . Confirmatory reports on subsets of these patients with hip replacement implants or fixator pins reported no hip implant infections and decreased pin tract infections respectively …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

2018 international consensus meeting on musculoskeletal infection: Summary from the biofilm workgroup and consensus on biofilm related musculoskeletal infections

Saeed

McLaren²,

Schwarz³

et al. 2019

Journal Orthopaedic Research

129

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biofilm-associated implant-related bone and joint infections are clinically important due to the extensive morbidity, cost of care and socioeconomic burden that they cause. Research in the field of biofilms has expanded in the past two decades, however, there is still an immense knowledge gap related to many clinical challenges of these biofilm-associated infections. This subject was assigned to the Biofilm Workgroup during the second International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection held in Philadelphia USA (ICM 2018) (https://icmphilly.com). The main objective of the Biofilm Workgroup was to prepare a consensus document based on a review of the literature, prepared responses, discussion, and vote on thirteen biofilm related questions. The Workgroup commenced discussing and refining responses prepared before the meeting on day one using Delphi methodology, followed by a tally of responses using an anonymized voting system on the second day of ICM 2018. The Working group derived consensus on information about biofilms deemed relevant to clinical practice, pertaining to: (1) surface modifications to prevent/inhibit biofilm formation; (2) therapies to prevent and treat biofilm infections; (3) polymicrobial biofilms; (4) diagnostics to detect active and dormant biofilm in patients; (5) methods to establish minimal biofilm eradication concentration for biofilm bacteria; and (6) novel anti-infectives that are effective against biofilm bacteria. It was also noted that biomedical research funding agencies and the pharmaceutical industry should recognize these areas as priorities. ß

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

2018 international consensus meeting on musculoskeletal infection: Summary from the biofilm workgroup and consensus on biofilm related musculoskeletal infections

Saeed

McLaren²,

Schwarz³

et al. 2019

Journal Orthopaedic Research

129

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two more recent non-comparative studies – one investigating iodine coating and megaprosthesis, 54 the other investigating total hip arthroplasty (THA) 55 – confirmed the safety and efficacy of the technology at longer follow-ups. Based on these findings, clinical trials are currently ongoing to meet the regulatory requirements for market approval.…”

Section: Antibacterial Coating In Orthopaedics and Traumamentioning

confidence: 95%

Antibacterial coating of implants: are we missing something?

Cl¹,

Tsuchiya

Morelli

et al. 2019

Bone & Joint Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Two more recent non-comparative studies -one investigating iodine coating and megaprosthesis [45], the other investigating total hip arthroplasty (THA) [46] -confirmed the safety and efficacy of the technology at longer follow-ups. Based on these findings, clinical trials are currently ongoing to meet the regulatory requirements for market approval (Fig.…”

Section: Iodine Coatingmentioning

confidence: 95%

Local Antibacterial Implant Protection in Orthopedics and Trauma: What’s New?

Romanò¹,

Божкова

Artyukh

et al. 2019

Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current prophylactic and hygienic measures notwithstanding, implant-related infection remains among leading reasons for failure in orthopaedics and trauma surgery, resulting in extremely high social and economic costs. Various antibacterial coating technologies have been proven safe and effective both in preclinical and in clinical settings and able to reduce post-surgical infections up to 90%, depending on the type of the coating and on the experimental setup. In spite of this findings, the widespread use of these technologies is still limited by several factors. After reviewing the latest evidence on currently available antibacterial coatings, an algorithm is proposed to calculate the impact of the delayed introduction of these technologies in the clinical practice. When applied to joint arthroplasties, our calculator shows that each year of delay to implement an antibacterial coating, able to reduce post-surgical infection by 80% at a final user's cost price of €600, causes an estimated 35 200 new cases of periprosthetic joint infection in Europe and additional annual hospital costs of approximately €440 million. Faster and more affordable regulatory pathways for antibacterial coating technologies and an adequate reimbursement policy for their clinical use appear a feasible solution to mitigate the impact of implant-related infections and may benefit patients, healthcare systems, and related research. реферат несмотря на современные достижения профилактики и гигиены, имплант-ассоциированная инфекция остается одной из основных причин несостоятельных результатов ортопедических и травматологических вмешательств, что приводит к чрезвычайно высоким социальным и экономическим издержкам. Различные технологии антибактериального покрытия имплантатов зарекомендовали себя как безопасное и эффектив-

show abstract

Iodine-Supported Hip Implants: Short Term Clinical Results

Cited by 30 publications

References 20 publications

2018 international consensus meeting on musculoskeletal infection: Summary from the biofilm workgroup and consensus on biofilm related musculoskeletal infections

2018 international consensus meeting on musculoskeletal infection: Summary from the biofilm workgroup and consensus on biofilm related musculoskeletal infections

Antibacterial coating of implants: are we missing something?

Local Antibacterial Implant Protection in Orthopedics and Trauma: What’s New?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About