Background When a physician-directed antibiotic-loaded polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement (ALBC) formulation is used in total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and total knee arthroplasties (TKAs), current practice in the United States involves arbitrary choice of the antibiotic loading (herein defined as the ratio of the mass of the antibiotic added to the mass of the cement powder). We suggest there is a need to develop a rational method for determining this loading. Questions/purposes We propose a new method for determining the antibiotic loading to use when preparing a physician-directed ALBC formulation and illustrate this method using three in vitro properties of an ALBC in which the antibiotic was daptomycin. Materials and MethodsDaptomycin was blended with the powder of the cement using a mechanical mixer. We performed fatigue, elution, and activity tests on three sets of specimens having daptomycin loadings of 2.25, 4.50, and 11.00 wt/wt%. Correlational analyses of the results of these tests were used in conjunction with stated constraints and a nonlinear optimization method to determine the daptomycin loading to use. Results With an increase in daptomycin loading, the estimated mean fatigue limit of the cement decreased, the estimated elution rate of the antibiotic increased, and the percentage inhibition of staphylococcal growth by the eluate remained unchanged at 100%. For a daptomycinloaded PMMA bone cement we computed the optimum amount of daptomycin to mechanically blend with 40 g of cement powder is 1.36 g. Conclusions We suggest an approach that may be used to determine the amount of antibiotic to blend with the powder of a PMMA bone cement when preparing a physician-directed ALBC formulation, and highlighted the attractions and limitations of this approach. Clinical Relevance When a physician-directed ALBC formulation is selected for use in a TKA or THA, the approach we detail may be employed to determine the antibiotic loading to use rather than the empirical approach that is taken in current clinical practice.

No abstract

No abstract

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USGS.

No abstract