Gentamicin release from commercially-available gentamicin-loaded PMMA bone cements in a prosthesis-related interfacial gap model and their antibacterial efficacy

BACKGROUND: Around about 1970, a gentamicin-loaded poly (methylmethacrylate) (PMMA) bone cement brand (Refobacin Palacos R) was introduced to control infection in joint arthroplasties. In 2005, this brand was replaced by two gentamicin-loaded follow-up brands, Refobacin Bone Cement R and Palacos R + G. In addition, another gentamicin-loaded cement brand, SmartSet GHV, was introduced in Europe in 2003. In the present study, we investigated differences in gentamicin release and the antibacterial efficacy of the eluent between these four cement brands. METHODS: 200 μm-wide gaps were made in samples of each cement and filled with buffer in order to measure the gentamicin release. Release kinetics were related to bone cement powder particle characteristics and wettabilities of the cement surfaces. Gaps were also inoculated with bacteria isolated from infected prostheses for 24 h and their survival determined. Gentamicin release and bacterial survival were statistically analysed using the Student's t-test. RESULTS: All three Palacos variants showed equal burst releases but each of the successor Palacos cements showed significantly higher sustained releases. SmartSet GHV showed a significantly higher burst release, while its sustained release was comparable with original Palacos. A gentamicin-sensitive bacterium did not survive in the high gentamicin concentrations in the interfacial gaps, while a gentamicin-resistant strain did, regardless of the type of cement used. Survival was independent of the level of burst release by the bone cement. CONCLUSIONS: Although marketed as the original gentamicin-loaded Palacos cement, orthopaedic surgeons should be aware that the successor cements do not appear to have the same release characteristics as the original one. Overall, high gentamicin concentrations were reached inside our prosthesis-related interfacial gap model. These concentrations may be expected to effectively decontaminate the prosthesis-related interfacial gap directly after implantation, provided that these bacteria are sensitive for gentamicin

A biodegradable antibiotic delivery system based on poly-(trimethylene carbonate) for the treatment of osteomyelitis

Background and purpose Many investigations on biodegradable materials acting as an antibiotic carrier for local drug delivery are based on poly(lactide). However, the use of poly(lactide) implants in bone has been disputed because of poor bone regeneration at the site of implantation. Poly(trimethylene carbonate) (PTMC) is an enzymatically degradable polymer that does not produce acidic degradation products. We explored the suitability of PTMC as an antibiotic releasing polymer for the local treatment of osteomyelitis

A surface-eroding antibiotic delivery system based on poly(trimethylene carbonate)

Biodegradable delivery systems that do not produce acidic compounds during degradation are preferred for local antibiotic delivery in bone infections in order to avoid adverse bone reactions. Poly(trimethylene carbonate) (PTMC) has good biocompatibility, and is such a polymer. The objective of this in vitro study was to explore the suitability of PTMC as an antibiotic releasing polymer for the local treatment of bone infections. Degradation behaviour and corresponding release profiles of gentamicin and vancomycin from slowly degrading PTMC(168) and faster degrading PTMC(339) discs were compared in the absence and presence of a lipase solution. Gentamicin release in the absence of lipase was diffusion-controlled, while vancomycin release was limited. Surface erosion of PTMC only occurred in the presence of lipase. Both antibiotics were released in high concentrations from PTMC in the presence of lipase through a combination of surface erosion and diffusion. This illustrates the major advantage of surface-eroding biodegradable polymers, allowing release of larger antibiotic molecules like vancomycin. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Biodegradable vs non-biodegradable antibiotic delivery devices in the treatment of osteomyelitis

Introduction: Chronic osteomyelitis, or bone infection, is a major worldwide cause of morbidity and mortality, as it is exceptionally hard to treat due to patient and pathogen-associated factors. Successful treatment requires surgical debridement together with long-term, high antibiotic concentrations that are best achieved by local delivery devices, either made of degradable or non-degradable materials. Areas covered: Non-degradable delivery devices are frequently constituted by polymethylmethacrylate-based carriers. Drawbacks are the need to remove the carrier (as the carrier itself may provide a substratum for bacterial colonization), inefficient release kinetics and incompatibility with certain antibiotics. These drawbacks have led to the quest for degradable alternatives, but also devices made of biodegradable calcium sulphate, collagen sponges, calcium phosphate or polylactic acids have their specific disadvantages. Expert opinion: Antibiotic treatment of osteomyelitis with the current degradable and non-degradable delivery devices is effective in the majority of cases. Degradable carriers have an advantage over non-degradable carriers that they do not require surgical removal. Synthetic poly(trimethylene carbonate) may be preferred in the future over currently approved lactic/glycolic acids, because it does not yield acidic degradation products. Moreover, degradable poly(trimethylene carbonate) yields a zero-order release kinetics that may not stimulate development of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains due to the absence of long-term, low-concentration tail-release