Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019 Jun 18. pii: S1877-0568(19)30168-9. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.05.006. [Epub ahead of print]

Is surface modification effective to prevent periprosthetic joint infection? A systematic review of preclinical and clinical studies.

Author information

1
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Fourth Clinical College of Peking University, No. 31 Xinjiekou East Street, Xicheng District, Beijing 100035, China.
2
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Fourth Clinical College of Peking University, No. 31 Xinjiekou East Street, Xicheng District, Beijing 100035, China. Electronic address: orthoyixin@yahoo.com.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

With increasing recognition of the importance of biofilm formation in the pathogenesis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), a push towards finding solutions to prevent PJI via surface modification of prostheses is occurring. Unlike the promising in vitro antimicrobial effects of these surface modifications, the preclinical and clinical prophylactic effects vary and are debated. Therefore, we performed this systematic review to answer: (1) what kinds of methods of surface modification are used in preclinical and clinical studies to prevent PJI, (2) whether these modifications are effective to prevent PJI.

METHODS:

Electronic searches were performed using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library databases up to and including December 2017 with predetermined criteria: (1) in vivo studies with (2) surface modification for prophylactic effects against infection. Both animal studies and clinical trials were included. Data were extracted and presented systematically.

RESULTS:

Overall, 21 studies were included. Among these, fourteen were carried out in animal models and seven were clinical studies. In the animal studies, six used antibiotics and six silver modifications, while copper and Cationic Steroidal Antimicrobial-13 were each used for one study. In the seven clinical studies targeting patients with high infection risk, five of them focused on silver-coated prostheses and the remaining two studied iodine-coated implants. In all of the animal studies, when compared with the control group, the surface modified groups had a lower infection risk (RR ranging from 0 to 0.71). Clinical studies using silver-coated prostheses also demonstrated a lower infection risk (RR ranging from 0.24 to 0.70), while iodine-coated implants showed a 0% and 5% incidence of PJI in the two case series included.

DISCUSSION:

The results from the publications included in this review indicate that surface modification, especially antibiotic and silver modifications, are helpful preventing PJI in both preclinical animal models and in clinical trials.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:

III, systematic review of level III retrospective comparative studies and level IV case series and animal experiments.

KEYWORDS:

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI); Prevention; Surface modification; Systematic review; in vivo

PMID:
31227461
DOI:
10.1016/j.otsr.2019.05.006

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center