Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) also referred as (acrylic) bone cement is a non-degradable biomaterial that has been used in clinical orthopedic practice for several decades. PMMA can be used in a plain formulation, but is often used in an antibiotic-loaded formulation in (primary and revision) arthroplasty and in treatment of orthopedic infections as prosthetic joint infections (PJI) and chronic osteomyelitis. In treatment of PJIs antibiotic-loaded PMMA is often used as a carrier material for local antibiotic delivery in addition to treatment with systemic antibiotics. In this case, the antibiotic-loaded PMMA is often used as a spacer or as a bead chain. Since the introduction of PMMA as an antibiotic carrier there is a tremendous amount of scientific and clinical papers published, which studied numerous different aspects of antibiotic-loaded PMMA. This paper will review the research regarding basic principles of antibiotic-loaded PMMA as mechanism of action, antibiotic-release capacities, choice of antibiotics and influences on mechanical properties of PMMA. Subsequently, concerns regarding the application of antibiotic-loaded PMMA, biofilm formation, antibiotic resistance and local or systemic toxicity will be discussed. In addition to these subjects, the role of antibiotic loaded PMMA in clinical treatment of PJIs and chronic osteomyelitis is discussed in the final part of this paper.

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).

Osteomyelitis is a common occurrence in orthopaedic surgery, which is caused by different bacteria. Treatment of osteomyelitis patients aims to eradicate infection by debridement surgery and local and systemic antibiotic therapy. Local treatment increases success rates and can be performed with different antimicrobial bone graft substitutes. This review is performed to assess the level of evidence of synthetic bone graft substitutes in osteomyelitis treatment. According to the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews, different types of clinical studies concerning treatment of osteomyelitis with bone graft substitutes are included. These studies are assessed on their methodological quality as level of evidence and bias and their clinical outcomes as eradication of infection. In the fifteen included studies, the levels of evidence were weak and in ten out of the fifteen studies there was a moderate to high risk of bias. However, first results of the eradication of infection in these studies showed promising results with their relatively high success rates and low complication rates. Due to the low levels of evidence and high risks of bias of the included studies, these results are inconclusive and no conclusions regarding the performed clinical studies of osteomyelitis treatment with antimicrobial bone graft substitutes can be drawn.

No abstract

BackgroundDeep postoperative and hematogenous prosthesis infections may be treated with retention of the prosthesis, if the prosthesis is stable. How long the infection may be present to preclude a good result is unclear.Patients and methodsWe retrospectively studied 89 deep-infected stable prostheses from 69 total hip replacements and 20 total knee replacements. There were 83 early or delayed postoperative infections and 6 hematogenous. In the postoperative infections, treatment had started 12 days to 2 years after implantation. In the hematogenous infections, symptoms had been present for 6 to 9 days. The patients had been treated with debridement, prosthesis retention, systemic antibiotics, and local antibiotics: gentamicin-PMMA beads or gentamicin collagen fleeces. The minimum follow-up time was 1.5 years. We investigated how the result of the treatment had been influenced by the length of the period the infection was present, and by other variables such as host characteristics, infection stage, and type of bacteria.ResultsIn postoperative infections, the risk of failure increased with a longer postoperative interval: from 0.2 (95% CI: 0.1–0.3) if the treatment had started ≥ 4 weeks postoperatively to 0.5 (CI: 0.2–0.8) if it had started at ≥ 8 weeks. The relative risk for success was 0.6 (CI: 0.3–0.95) if the treatment had started ≥ 8 weeks. In the hematogenous group, 5 of 6 infections had been treated successfully.InterpretationA longer delay before the start of the treatment caused an increased failure rate, but this must be weighed against the advantage of keeping the prosthesis. We consider a failure rate of < 50% to be acceptable, and we therefore advocate keeping the prosthesis for up to 8 weeks postoperatively, and in hematogenous infections with a short duration of symptoms.