| Literature DB >> 25695057 |
Gregor Hauschild1, Jendrik Hardes1, Georg Gosheger1, Sandra Stoeppeler2, Helmut Ahrens1, Franziska Blaske3, Christoph Wehe3, Uwe Karst3, Steffen Höll1.
Abstract
Infection associated with biomaterials used for orthopedic prostheses remains a serious complication in orthopedics, especially tumor surgery. Silver-coating of orthopedic (mega)prostheses proved its efficiency in reducing infections but has been limited to surface areas exposed to soft tissues due to concerns of silver inhibiting osseous integration of cementless stems. To close this gap in the bactericidal capacity of silver-coated orthopedic prostheses extension of the silver-coating on surface areas intended for osseous integration seems to be inevitable. Our study reports about a PVD- (physical-vapor-deposition-) silver-coated cementless stem in a canine model for the first time and showed osseous integration of a silver-coated titanium surface in vivo. Radiological, histological, and biomechanical analysis revealed a stable osseous integration of four of nine stems implanted. Silver trace elemental concentrations in serum did not exceed 1.82 parts per billion (ppb) and can be considered as nontoxic. Changes in liver and kidney functions associated with the silver-coating could be excluded by blood chemistry analysis. This was in accordance with very limited metal displacement from coated surfaces observed by laser ablation inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) 12 months after implantation. In conclusion our results represent a step towards complete bactericidal silver-coating of orthopedic prostheses.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25695057 PMCID: PMC4324895 DOI: 10.1155/2015/292406
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Schedule of analytical procedures in vivo.
| Procedures | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical assessment | o | o | o | o | o | o | o | o | |
| Blood count | o | o | o | o | o | o | o | o | |
| Blood chemistry | o | o | o | o | o | o | o | o | |
| C-reactive protein | o | o | o | o | o | o | o | o | |
| Metal ions (serum analysis) | o | o | o | o | o | o | o | o | |
| X-rays | o | o | o | o | o | o | o | ||
|
| |||||||||
| Pre-op | Post-op | 3 days post-op | 10 days post-op | 6 weeks post-op | 3 months post-op | 6 months post-op | 9 months post-op | 12 months post-op | |
Figure 1SEM of titanium discs: upper row shows uncoated titanium disc topography in micro- (left) and nanoscale (right); row below shows silver-coated titanium disc topography with no alterations in the microscale but a slightly smoothend appearance of the surface contour without perceptible changes in topography in the nanoscale.
Figure 2Femur fixed in the biomechanical testing system.
Assignment of test animals to the analytical procedures and classification.
| ID | Blood count/chemistry | Silver quantification | X-rays | Classification | Biomechanical testing | Classification | Histology | Classification | LA-ICP-MS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1x | ✓ | ✓ | n.a. | — | ✓ | Loose | — | — | — |
| V2 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Stable | — | — | ✓ | Stable | ✓ |
| V3 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Stable | ✓ | Stable | — | — | — |
| V4 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Loose | ✓ | Loose | — | — | — |
| V6 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Loose | — | — | ✓ | Loose | ✓ |
| V7y | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Loose | — | — | ✓ | Loose | ✓ |
| V8 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Loose | ✓ | Loose | — | — | — |
| V9 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Stable | — | — | ✓ | Stable | ✓ |
| V10 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Stable | ✓ | Stable | — | — | — |
n.a.: not analyzable; xfailed implantation; yfailed implantation followed by revision surgery.
Presurgical and follow-up values of C-reactive protein (mg/L, normal value <5).
| Pre-op | 3rd day post-op | 10th day post-op | 6 weeks post-op | 3 months post-op | 6 months post-op | 9 months post-op | 12 months post-op | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1 | 7.5 | 23.6 | 10.5 | <5 | <5 | <5 | 8.5 | <5 |
| V2 | <5 | 15.2 | <5 | <5 | 6.1 | <5 | <5 | <5 |
| V3 | 5.6 | 38.7 | 14.9 | <5 | <5 | <5 | <5 | 8.8 |
| V4 | <5 | 27.8 | <5 | <5 | <5 | 5.8 | <5 | <5 |
| V6 | <5 | 35 | 13.9 | <5 | <5 | <5 | <5 | <5 |
| V7 | <5 | 36.7 | 11 | <5 | <5 | <5 | <5 | <5 |
| V8 | <5 | 26 | 9.6 | <5 | <5 | <5 | <5 | <5 |
| V9 | <5 | 32.6 | 12.3 | <5 | <5 | <5 | <5 | <5 |
| V10 | <5 | 37.5 | 9.6 | <5 | <5 | 5.9 | <5 | <5 |
Maximal pull-out forces.
|
| Classification | |
|---|---|---|
| C1‡ | 625.13 | — |
| C2‡ | 93.75 | — |
| C3‡ | 116.5 | — |
| C4‡ | 68.42 | — |
| V1 | 20.02 | loose |
| V3 | 414.55 | stable |
| V4 | 25 | loose |
| V8 | 0 | loose |
| V10 | 2008.63 | stable |
C1–4: cadaver implantation, ‡data by Welz 2008 [12]; V1–V10: test animals implanted.
Percentage of osseous integration.
| ROI | V2 | V6 | V7 | V9 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OI/% | CTI/% | OI/% | CTI/% | OI/% | CTI/% | OI/% | CTI/% | |
| 1 | n.a. | n.a. | 20 | 80 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |
| 2 | n.a. | n.a. | 15 | 85 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |
| 3 | 5 | 95 | 5 | 95 | n.a. | n.a. | 60 | 40 |
| 4 | 0 | 100 | 3 | 97 | 10 | 90 | 85 | 15 |
| 5 | 40 | 60 | 5 | 95 | 15 | 85 | 75 | 25 |
| 6 | 45 | 55 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 100 | 75 | 25 |
| 7 | 65 | 35 | 0 | 100 | 5 | 95 | 70 | 30 |
| 8 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 100 | 75 | 25 |
| 9 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 100 | 95 | 5 |
|
| ||||||||
| Mean | 51 ± 41 | 49 | 5 ± 7 | 95 | 5 ± 6 | 95 | 76 ± 11 | 24 |
OI%: percentage of osseous integration of the stem; CTI%: percentage of connective tissue ingrowth between stem and surrounding tissue; n.a.: not analyzable, extraosseous localization of the stem areas.
Matching of histological ROIs and Gruen zones.
| ROI | Gruen zone | V2 | V6 | V7 | V9 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | mm | % | mm | % | mm | % | mm | ||
| 1 | 1 | n.a. | 0 | 20 | 1 | n.a. | 1 | n.a. | 0 |
| 4, 5, 6 | 2 | 28.3 | 0 | 2.7 | 1 | 8.3 | 1 | 78.3 | 0 |
| 7, 8, 9 | 3 | 88.3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.7 | 1 | 80 | 0 |
| 7, 8, 9 | 5 | 88.3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1.7 | 2.5 | 80 | 0 |
| 5, 6 | 6 | 42.5 | 1 | 2.5 | 2 | 7.5 | 2.5 | 75 | 0 |
| 2, 3, 4 | 7 | 1.7 | 1 | 7.7 | 2 | 10 | 2 | 72.5 | 0 |
n.a.: not analyzable, extraosseous localization of the stem; %: mean percentage of osseous integration of matched ROIs; mm: mm of osteolysis.
Figure 3Photomicrograph of ROI 8 (V2) showing area of ablation and scan direction (arrow).
Figure 4V9 ROI 6, 12 months after surgery: X-ray in v/d recumbency showing (a) stable osseous integration of the stem, (b) histological analysis in overview and detail of ROI 6, and toluidine blue staining. 10x magnification: (b, c) osseous ingrowth on 75% of the stem circumference and (d) LA-ICP-MS scan of ROI 6 displaying the overlay images of titanium (Ti) and silver (Ag).
Figure 5V7 ROI 8, 12 months after surgery: X-ray in v/d recumbency showing (a) loosening of the stem, (b) histological analysis in overview and detail of ROI 8, and toluidine blue staining. 10x magnification: (b, c) osseous ingrowth on 0% of the stem circumference and (d) LA-ICP-MS scan of ROI 6 displaying the overlay images of titanium (Ti) and silver (Ag).