Download PDF
Z Orthop Unfall 2018; 156(02): 152-159
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-124377
Original Article/Originalarbeit
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

The Use of Bioactive Glass S53P4 as Bone Graft Substitute in the Treatment of Chronic Osteomyelitis and Infected Non-Unions – a Retrospective Study of 50 Patients

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Tarek Al Malat
1   Klinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, BG Klinikum Duisburg
,
Martin Glombitza
1   Klinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, BG Klinikum Duisburg
,
Janosch Dahmen
1   Klinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, BG Klinikum Duisburg
2   Department für Humanmedizin, Fakultät für Gesundheit, Universität Witten/Herdecke, Witten
,
Peter-Michael Hax
1   Klinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, BG Klinikum Duisburg
,
Eva Steinhausen
1   Klinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, BG Klinikum Duisburg
2   Department für Humanmedizin, Fakultät für Gesundheit, Universität Witten/Herdecke, Witten
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
17 April 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Treatment of chronic osteomyelitis (COM) remains challenging and often results in large bone defects. Dead space management and proper defect filling are essential for successful treatment. Bioactive glass S53P4 (BAG-S53P4) is an anorganic bone graft substitute with antibacterial, osteoconductive, osteostimulative and angiogenic properties. The aim of our study was to analyse the outcome of patients with COM and infected non-unions, whose bone defects were filled with BAG-S53P4.

Material and Methods In this retrospective study (07/13 – 02/16), we analysed all patients with COM and infected non-unions, who obtained BAG-S53P4 after surgical debridement to fill their bone defects. Epidemiological data, pre-, peri- and postoperative characteristics were evaluated. The primary endpoint was the successful control of infection during the follow-up period. Secondary endpoints were the absence of BAG-S53P4-related complications, the time period to full weight bearing as well as to radiologically detectable incorporation of BAG. X-ray examinations were routinely performed 1 month, 3 – 4 months, 6 months and 12 months postoperatively.

Results 50 patients were analysed. Staphylococcus aureus was the most common pathogen involved. On average, 11.1 ± 6.7 cm3 BAG-S53P4 were implanted. Mean follow-up was at 12.3 months. After 6 months, 26/37 (70.3%) and after 12 months, 35/42 (83.3%) of the filled bone defects were healed. X-ray examinations showed a thickened neo-cortex. 40 patients (80%) have achieved full weight bearing after a mean of 4 months. There were no complications at all in 76% of patients. Seven patients suffered reinfection. BAG-associated complications were not seen.

Conclusions The use of BAG-S53P4 in patients with COM and infected non-unions is promising. Adequate debridement and proper defect filling are necessary. BAG is well tolerated. X-ray examinations showed a thickened neo-cortex. The antibacterial effect is not mediated by antibiotics and is advantageous in times of evolving antibiotic resistance. High quality studies with a longer follow-up are required.

Trial registration: TRN DRKS00011679

Key words

osteomyelitis - bioactive glass - bone substitute - antibacterial - osteoconductive
 

  • References/Literatur

  • 1 Zimmerli W, Fluckiger U. [Classification and microbiology of osteomyelitis]. Orthopäde 2004; 33: 267-272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lew DP, Waldvogel FA. Osteomyelitis. Lancet 2004; 364: 369-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Simpson AH, Deakin M, Latham JM. Chronic osteomyelitis. The effect of the extent of surgical resection on infection-free survival. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001; 83: 403-407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Anagnostakos K, Hitzler P, Pape D. et al. Persistence of bacterial growth on antibiotic-loaded beads: is it actually a problem?. Acta Orthop 2008; 79: 302-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Anderson GG, OʼToole GA. Innate and induced resistance mechanisms of bacterial biofilms. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 2008; 322: 85-105
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Walter G, Kemmerer M, Kappler C. et al. Treatment algorithms for chronic osteomyelitis. Dtsch Ärztebl Int 2012; 109: 257-264
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sen MK, Miclau T. Autologous iliac crest bone graft: should it still be the gold standard for treating nonunions?. Injury 2007; 38 (Suppl. 01) S75-S80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Schieker M, Heiss C, Mutschler W. [Bone substitutes]. Unfallchirurg 2008; 111: 613-619 quiz 620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Day RM. Bioactive glass stimulates the secretion of angiogenic growth factors and angiogenesis in vitro. Tissue Eng 2005; 11: 768-777
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lepparanta O, Vaahtio M, Peltola T. et al. Antibacterial effect of bioactive glasses on clinically important anaerobic bacteria in vitro. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2008; 19: 547-551
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lindfors NC, Aho AJ. Tissue response to bioactive glass and autogenous bone in the rabbit spine. Eur Spine J 2000; 9: 30-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Heikkila JT, Aho HJ, Yli-Urpo A. et al. Bone formation in rabbit cancellous bone defects filled with bioactive glass granules. Acta Orthop Scand 1995; 66: 463-467
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Suominen E, Kinnunen J. Bioactive glass granules and plates in the reconstruction of defects of the facial bones. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 1996; 30: 281-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Heikkila JT, Kukkonen J, Aho AJ. et al. Bioactive glass granules: a suitable bone substitute material in the operative treatment of depressed lateral tibial plateau fractures: a prospective, randomized 1 year follow-up study. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2011; 22: 1073-1080
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lindfors NC, Heikkila JT, Koski I. et al. Bioactive glass and autogenous bone as bone graft substitutes in benign bone tumors. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2009; 90: 131-136
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Auregan JC, Begue T. Bioactive glass for long bone infection: a systematic review. Injury 2015; 46 (Suppl. 08) S3-S7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 van Gestel NA, Geurts J, Hulsen DJ. et al. Clinical applications of S53P4 bioactive glass in bone healing and osteomyelitic treatment: a literature review. Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015: 684826
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Drago L, Vassena C, Fenu S. et al. In vitro antibiofilm activity of bioactive glass S53P4. Future Microbiol 2014; 9: 593-601
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bortolin M, De Vecchi E, Romano CL. et al. Antibiofilm agents against MDR bacterial strains: is bioactive glass BAG-S53P4 also effective?. J Antimicrob Chemother 2016; 71: 123-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Coraca-Huber DC, Fille M, Hausdorfer J. et al. Efficacy of antibacterial bioactive glass S53P4 against S. aureus biofilms grown on titanium discs in vitro. J Orthop Res 2014; 32: 175-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gergely I, Zazgyva A, Man A, Zuh SG, Pop TS. The in vitro antibacterial effect of S53P4 bioactive glass and gentamicin impregnated polymethylmethacrylate beads. Acta Microbiol Immunol Hung 2014; 61: 145-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Stallmann HP, Faber C, Bronckers AL, Nieuw Amerongen AV, Wuisman PI. In vitro gentamicin release from commercially available calcium-phosphate bone substitutes influence of carrier type on duration of the release profile. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2006; 7: 18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Luo S, Jiang T, Yang Y. et al. Combination therapy with vancomycin-loaded calcium sulfate and vancomycin-loaded PMMA in the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016; 17: 502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 McAndrew J, Efrimescu C, Sheehan E. et al. Through the looking glass; bioactive glass S53P4 (BonAlive®) in the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis. Ir J Med Sci 2013; 182: 509-511
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lindfors NC, Hyvonen P, Nyyssonen M. et al. Bioactive glass S53P4 as bone graft substitute in treatment of osteomyelitis. Bone 2010; 47: 212-218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Drago L, Romano D, De Vecchi E. et al. Bioactive glass BAG-S53P4 for the adjunctive treatment of chronic osteomyelitis of the long bones: an in vitro and prospective clinical study. BMC Infect Dis 2013; 13: 584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Romanò CL, Logoluso N, Meani E. et al. A comparative study of the use of bioactive glass S53P4 and antibiotic-loaded calcium-based bone substitutes in the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis: a retrospective comparative study. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B: 845-850
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Lindfors N, Geurts J, Drago L. et al. Antibacterial bioactive glass, S53P4, for chronic bone infections – a multinational study. Adv Exp Med Biol 2017; 971: 81-92
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Lazzarini L, Lipsky BA, Mader JT. Antibiotic treatment of osteomyelitis: what have we learned from 30 years of clinical trials?. Int J Infect Dis 2005; 9: 127-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 van Vugt TA, Geurts J, Arts JJ. Clinical application of antimicrobial bone graft substitute in osteomyelitis treatment: a systematic review of different bone graft substitutes available in clinical treatment of osteomyelitis. Biomed Res Int 2016; 2016: 6984656
    PubMedGoogle Scholar