Antimicrobial Medical Devices in Preclinical Development and Clinical Use

Comparisons of Release of Several Antibiotics from Antimicrobial Polymer-Coated Allograft Bone Void Filler

“…Localized antibiotic delivery typically provides substantial antibiotic release directly to tissue sites within several days to kill resident pathogens, minimizes systemic toxicity, and ensures initial drug concentrations above the MIC at the implant site. [4,7] Most common vehicles for localized drug delivery to bone include non-degrading antibiotic-releasing bone cements, which utilize gentamycin, tobramycin, or vancomycin bulk-loaded into a non-porous poly(methylmethacrylate) (PMMA) glassy matrix. [13][14][15] These biomaterials are commonly used in revision surgeries to secure implants into bone, but are not approved as bone defect fillers.…”

“…These products release antibiotic over short periods (usually one to two weeks) and may degrade quickly (9). Bone grafts with extended drug release in the clinically relevant 8-12 week post-operative timeframe that are also osteoconductive are not reported (4). A longer drug release profile with similar capability for bone integration could potentially reduce the incidence of osteomyelitis.…”

Shark Skin: Taking a Bite Out of Bacteria

“…With around 30 million urinary catheters inserted into patients each year and approximately 95 % of urinary tract infections a result of urinary catheter usage (Brooks et al 2013 ), the prevention of infection without the use of harmful and toxic antibiotics would increase the quality of life for many patients. In this study, Reddy et al tested the effect of variations of the Sharklet pattern on the colonization and migration of Escherichia coli , the most common uropathogen, across silicone elastomer, the material most used for urinary catheters.…”

Maximizing fibroblast adhesion on protein-coated surfaces using microfluidic cell printing

“…In the case of an implanted biomedical device, host proteins coat the device surface almost immediately and mediate all cellular interactions, promoting cellular recruitment and adhesion, ultimately masking the underlying implant surface 2,6 . The potentially pathological wound healing response that occurs in the presence of an implanted material (i.e., FBR represents a coordinated inflammation cascade directed by responding macrophages that act to recruit host cells, such as fibroblasts, in an organized effort to sequester the implant 3,7 (Figure 1). Although cellular and surface factors that arbitrate the interactions of macrophages with a foreign material have been well characterized 6,8–12 , the precise interaction of fibroblasts and a host protein encapsulated foreign material is less understood.…”

“…An understanding of the integration of fibroblasts in the foreign body response, particularly their attachment to the host proteins that coat the implanted foreign material, is key to the biocompatibility, longevity, and functionality of the medical device 3 . By manipulating the host protein adlayer and promoting healthy cellular adhesion with native extracellular matrix proteins such as albumin, the device/host tissue interaction can be improved, thereby improving the device functionality, reducing infection 7 , and increasing life-span 14–17 . Using a vertical flow microfluidics platform, the cell/material interface can be modelled and manipulated to tease apart the cellular attachment to an implant surface while maintaining a more physiologically relevant cellular microenvironment.…”