Background Antibiotic-containing cement and bone graft substitute-coated orthopedic implants provide the advantages of simultaneous local antibiotic delivery and internal stable fixation, aiding in both infection eradication and osseous healing. Standardized protocols pertaining to implant coating techniques in various clinical and particularly intraoperative settings are scarce, and available literature is limited. This systematic review aims to provide a summary of the available current literature reporting on custom-made coating techniques of orthopedic implants, indications, outcomes, and associated complications in clinical use. Methods A systematic search of the literature in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Articles reporting specifically on custom-made coating techniques of orthopedic implants in a clinical setting were eligible. Results A total of 41 articles with a cumulative total number of 607 cases were included. Indications for treatment mostly involved intramedullary infections after previous plate osteosynthesis or nailing. A variety of implants ranging from intramedullary nails, plates, wires, and rods served as metal cores for coating. Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement was most commonly used, with vancomycin as the most frequently added antibiotic additive. Chest tubes and silicone tubes were most often used to mold. Common complications are cement debonding and breakage of the metallic implant. Conclusion Adequate coating techniques can reduce the burden of treatment and be associated with favorable outcomes. Lack of general consensus and heterogeneity in the reported literature indicate that the perfect all-in-one implant coating method is yet to be found. Further efforts to improve implant coating techniques are warranted. Level of evidence III.

Introduction. Nonunions are a challenge for orthopedic surgeons. In hypertrophic nonunions, improvement of mechanical stability usually is the satisfactory treatment, whereas in atrophic nonunions improvement of the biological environment is most important. However, scientific evidence revealed that “avital” nonunions are not avascular and fibrous tissue contains cells with osteogenic potential. To find out if systemic factors suppress this intrinsic potential in atrophic nonunions, this study compares characteristics of hypertrophic with atrophic nonunion patients. Methods. We analyzed medical records of 162 surgically treated patients suffering from aseptic long bone nonunions. Atrophic and hypertrophic nonunions were distinguished by absence or presence of callus and calcification in the fracture gap. Mechanical implant loosening and patient characteristics such as age, gender, and body mass index were assessed. Fracture classification according to AO/OTA, open and closed fractures, and osteosynthesis were recorded. In addition, comorbidities and allergies between both groups were compared. Results. A higher number of hypertrophic nonunion patients were male with often allergies. Hypertrophic nonunion occurred more often after intramedullary nailing compared to atrophic nonunions. Atrophic nonunion patients being nonallergic were significantly older than nonallergic patients suffering from hypertrophic nonunions. In both atrophic and hypertrophic nonunion patients, age was lower in patients with accompanying injuries compared with age of patients with isolated fractures. Conclusion. Systemic factors influence development of nonunion types. In nonallergic patients, atrophic nonunions occur more often in the elderly. This manuscript is a first step to identify different factors which might influence the nature of nonunion. To enable nonunion treatment which is tailored to individual patient characteristics, further prospective studies with more sophisticated research methods are necessary.

Background Periprosthetic fractures (PPF) present a common cause for revision surgery after arthroplasty. The choice of performing either an osteosynthesis or revision arthroplasty depends on the orthopedic implant anchored and loosening. Standard diagnostics include x-ray imaging. CT is usually performed to confirm implant loosening in case of ambiguous diagnosis on standard x-ray imaging. This study aimed to examine the role of CT as a diagnostic modality and its implications for treatment planning and outcome. Methods Patients treated for PPF from January 2010 to February 2018 were included. X-ray and CT reports were analyzed to assess implant loosening. The planning for surgery and the final surgical treatment were evaluated. In addition, patient characteristics were analyzed and compared between patients with and without additional CT as a preoperative diagnostic procedure. Results Seventy-five patients were eligible for the study. X-ray imaging was performed in 90.7% of cases. CT was performed in 60% of the cases as part of the preoperative diagnostic. A clear statement on implant stability or loosening could not be made in 69.1% after X-ray imaging and in 84.4% following CT imaging. Revision arthroplasty for loosened femoral prosthesis components was necessary in 40% of cases. No difference could be determined comparing patients with X-ray imaging to those with X-ray and additional CT. In both groups, operative treatment did not deviate from the preoperative planning. Discussion In two thirds of the conventional radiographic findings, no reliable evaluation of implant loosening was possible in femoral PPFs. Intriguingly, additional CT did not improve the evaluation of implant loosening. Nonetheless, CT scans are often performed if loosening assessment is unclear on regular radiographs. This fact can explain the bias CT results in comparison to regular radiography. However, software-supported CT diagnosis could help to adequately answer the question of loosened implants in PPF in the near future. Since the diagnosis of fracture and their morphology assessment is currently adequately performed using X-rays, CT shall not be considered as the gold standard.

No abstract