Does Cement Viscosity Impact Antibiotic Elution and In Vitro Efficacy Against Common Prosthetic Joint Infection Pathogens?

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-02 DOI:10.1097/CORR.0000000000003272
Matthew J Dietz, Brian M McGowan, Dylan D Thomas, Emily R Hunt, Elizabeth Stewart, Matthew W Squire
{"title":"Does Cement Viscosity Impact Antibiotic Elution and In Vitro Efficacy Against Common Prosthetic Joint Infection Pathogens?","authors":"Matthew J Dietz, Brian M McGowan, Dylan D Thomas, Emily R Hunt, Elizabeth Stewart, Matthew W Squire","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003272","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) antibiotic-laden bone cement (ALBC) is commonly used in total joint arthroplasty to treat and potentially prevent prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Multiple properties impact the elution characteristics of antibiotics from PMMA-based ALBC, including viscosity. What is not known is how medium-viscosity cement formulations affect antibiotic elution and how different cement products from different manufacturers compare regarding reaching the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of antibiotics for common PJI-causing organisms in an in vitro setting.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>(1) Does cement viscosity impact in vitro antibiotic elution characteristics when comparing medium-viscosity ALBC and high-viscosity ALBC formulations from the same manufacturer against four common PJI pathogens? (2) Does the manufacturer of the PMMA-based ALBC product and the type of aminoglycoside (gentamicin versus tobramycin) impact the in vitro antibiotic elution against four common PJI pathogens?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three different PMMA-based ALBC products, including Palacos® R (high viscosity) plus gentamicin (PR+G), Palacos (medium viscosity) plus gentamicin (PMV+G), and Simplex™ P (low viscosity) plus tobramycin (SP+T), and controls for each cement type, including Palacos R, Palacos medium viscosity, and Simplex P, were evaluated. These cements were tested against four common PJI pathogens: methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus , methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), methicillin-sensitive S. epidermidis (MSSE), and methicillin-resistant S. epidermidis . A 5-day elution protocol was observed using uniform cylindrical cement samples of each cement product. Each analysis was run with three separate lots of cement, with four samples created per lot and each sample run in duplicate. Standard curves with known antibiotic concentrations were created. Kirby-Bauer assays were then used to determine the zone of inhibition for each cement product against the four common PJI pathogens. The eluted antibiotic concentration was extrapolated for each product over 5 days to determine the interpolated antibiotic concentration for each of the 5 days. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated as a surrogate for total antibiotics eluted over the 5-day period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cement viscosity does not impact antibiotic elution characteristics when comparing a medium-viscosity ALBC and a high-viscosity ALBC from the same manufacturer. The cement products from two manufacturers containing different types of aminoglycosides differ in their in vitro activity over a 5-day period against four common PJI pathogens. There was no difference in interpolated antibiotic concentration against MSSE on Day 1 between PMV+G cement and PR+G (high-viscosity) (mean ± SD medium-viscosity cement gentamicin concentration 73.6 ± 14.0 µg/mL versus high-viscosity gentamicin concentration 80.3 ± 15.5 µg/mL, mean difference -6.8 [95% confidence interval (CI) -27 to 40]; p = 0.9); there was, however, greater interpolated effective antibiotic in PR+G when compared with tobramycin concentration of SP+T (80.3 ± 15.5 µg/mL versus 199.9 ± 81 µg/mL, mean difference -120 [95% CI -153 to -86]; p < 0.001). All antibiotic cement products had zones of inhibition that corresponded to an interpolated concentration above the MIC (> 32 mg/L) for all organisms on Day 1. Concentrations were maintained above the MIC even at Day 2 for only MRSA and MSSE for PMV+G and PR+G. Concentrations dropped below the MIC after Day 1 for all organisms for SP+T. Similar results were seen in the AUC, which was used as a surrogate for total antibiotics eluted over 5 days, where PMV+G and PR+G both had greater antibiotics eluted over 5 days than SP+T except for MSSE, which demonstrated no difference in the AUC.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this study, medium-viscosity ALBC demonstrated similar elution properties compared with high-viscosity ALBC from the same manufacturer. Both the medium- and high-viscosity ALBC cement products from Palacos demonstrated superior in vitro antibiotic elution properties and activity against four common PJI pathogens compared with low-viscosity ALBC from Simplex over a 5-day period.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>This in vitro study suggests that a surgeon may choose to use Palacos medium-viscosity ALBC (PMV+G) in total joint applications without impacting the in vitro antibiotic elution properties compared with Palacos high-viscosity ALBC (PR+G), and that both the medium- and high-viscosity formulations of ALBC from Palacos may have improved activity against three of four common PJI pathogens compared with Simplex low-viscosity ALBC (SP+T). However, more related research is needed to determine the in vivo activity of these ALBC products and the overall efficacy of routine use of ALBC in general.</p>","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":" ","pages":"488-497"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11828028/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003272","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) antibiotic-laden bone cement (ALBC) is commonly used in total joint arthroplasty to treat and potentially prevent prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Multiple properties impact the elution characteristics of antibiotics from PMMA-based ALBC, including viscosity. What is not known is how medium-viscosity cement formulations affect antibiotic elution and how different cement products from different manufacturers compare regarding reaching the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of antibiotics for common PJI-causing organisms in an in vitro setting.

Questions/purposes: (1) Does cement viscosity impact in vitro antibiotic elution characteristics when comparing medium-viscosity ALBC and high-viscosity ALBC formulations from the same manufacturer against four common PJI pathogens? (2) Does the manufacturer of the PMMA-based ALBC product and the type of aminoglycoside (gentamicin versus tobramycin) impact the in vitro antibiotic elution against four common PJI pathogens?

Methods: Three different PMMA-based ALBC products, including Palacos® R (high viscosity) plus gentamicin (PR+G), Palacos (medium viscosity) plus gentamicin (PMV+G), and Simplex™ P (low viscosity) plus tobramycin (SP+T), and controls for each cement type, including Palacos R, Palacos medium viscosity, and Simplex P, were evaluated. These cements were tested against four common PJI pathogens: methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus , methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), methicillin-sensitive S. epidermidis (MSSE), and methicillin-resistant S. epidermidis . A 5-day elution protocol was observed using uniform cylindrical cement samples of each cement product. Each analysis was run with three separate lots of cement, with four samples created per lot and each sample run in duplicate. Standard curves with known antibiotic concentrations were created. Kirby-Bauer assays were then used to determine the zone of inhibition for each cement product against the four common PJI pathogens. The eluted antibiotic concentration was extrapolated for each product over 5 days to determine the interpolated antibiotic concentration for each of the 5 days. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated as a surrogate for total antibiotics eluted over the 5-day period.

Results: Cement viscosity does not impact antibiotic elution characteristics when comparing a medium-viscosity ALBC and a high-viscosity ALBC from the same manufacturer. The cement products from two manufacturers containing different types of aminoglycosides differ in their in vitro activity over a 5-day period against four common PJI pathogens. There was no difference in interpolated antibiotic concentration against MSSE on Day 1 between PMV+G cement and PR+G (high-viscosity) (mean ± SD medium-viscosity cement gentamicin concentration 73.6 ± 14.0 µg/mL versus high-viscosity gentamicin concentration 80.3 ± 15.5 µg/mL, mean difference -6.8 [95% confidence interval (CI) -27 to 40]; p = 0.9); there was, however, greater interpolated effective antibiotic in PR+G when compared with tobramycin concentration of SP+T (80.3 ± 15.5 µg/mL versus 199.9 ± 81 µg/mL, mean difference -120 [95% CI -153 to -86]; p < 0.001). All antibiotic cement products had zones of inhibition that corresponded to an interpolated concentration above the MIC (> 32 mg/L) for all organisms on Day 1. Concentrations were maintained above the MIC even at Day 2 for only MRSA and MSSE for PMV+G and PR+G. Concentrations dropped below the MIC after Day 1 for all organisms for SP+T. Similar results were seen in the AUC, which was used as a surrogate for total antibiotics eluted over 5 days, where PMV+G and PR+G both had greater antibiotics eluted over 5 days than SP+T except for MSSE, which demonstrated no difference in the AUC.

Conclusion: In this study, medium-viscosity ALBC demonstrated similar elution properties compared with high-viscosity ALBC from the same manufacturer. Both the medium- and high-viscosity ALBC cement products from Palacos demonstrated superior in vitro antibiotic elution properties and activity against four common PJI pathogens compared with low-viscosity ALBC from Simplex over a 5-day period.

Clinical relevance: This in vitro study suggests that a surgeon may choose to use Palacos medium-viscosity ALBC (PMV+G) in total joint applications without impacting the in vitro antibiotic elution properties compared with Palacos high-viscosity ALBC (PR+G), and that both the medium- and high-viscosity formulations of ALBC from Palacos may have improved activity against three of four common PJI pathogens compared with Simplex low-viscosity ALBC (SP+T). However, more related research is needed to determine the in vivo activity of these ALBC products and the overall efficacy of routine use of ALBC in general.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
水泥粘度是否影响抗生素洗脱和体外对常见假体关节感染病原体的疗效?
背景:聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯(PMMA)载抗生素骨水泥(ALBC)通常用于全关节置换术治疗和潜在预防假关节感染(PJI)。多种性质影响了pmma基ALBC中抗生素的洗脱特性,包括粘度。目前尚不清楚的是,中等粘度水泥配方如何影响抗生素洗脱,以及不同制造商的不同水泥产品在体外环境中对常见pji引起的微生物达到最低抗生素抑制浓度(MIC)方面的比较。问题/目的:(1)当比较同一制造商的中粘度ALBC和高粘度ALBC配方对四种常见PJI病原体的影响时,水泥粘度是否会影响体外抗生素洗脱特性?(2)基于pmma的ALBC产品的制造商和氨基糖苷的类型(庆大霉素与妥布霉素)是否影响针对四种常见PJI病原体的体外抗生素洗脱?方法:对Palacos®R(高粘度)+庆大霉素(PR+G)、Palacos(中粘度)+庆大霉素(PMV+G)、Simplex™P(低粘度)+ tobramycin (SP+T)三种不同的基于pmma的ALBC产品,以及每种水泥类型(Palacos R、Palacos中粘度和Simplex P)的对照进行评估。这些水泥对四种常见的PJI病原体进行了检测:甲氧西林敏感金黄色葡萄球菌、耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)、甲氧西林敏感表皮葡萄球菌(MSSE)和耐甲氧西林表皮葡萄球菌。使用每种水泥产品的均匀圆柱形水泥样品观察5天洗脱方案。每次分析用三个不同批次的水泥进行,每个批次创建四个样品,每个样品重复运行。建立已知抗生素浓度的标准曲线。然后使用Kirby-Bauer测定法确定每种水泥制品对四种常见PJI病原体的抑制区。在5天内外推每个产品洗脱的抗生素浓度,以确定5天内插的抗生素浓度。计算曲线下面积(AUC)作为5天内洗脱总抗生素的替代指标。结果:在比较同一厂家生产的中粘度ALBC和高粘度ALBC时,水泥粘度不影响抗生素洗脱特性。来自两家制造商的水泥产品含有不同类型的氨基糖苷,在5天内对四种常见PJI病原体的体外活性不同。第1天PMV+G水泥和PR+G(高粘度)对MSSE的内插抗生素浓度无差异(平均±SD中粘度水泥庆大霉素浓度为73.6±14.0µG /mL,高粘度庆大霉素浓度为80.3±15.5µG /mL,平均差值为-6.8[95%可信区间(CI) -27 ~ 40];P = 0.9);然而,与SP+T的妥布霉素浓度相比,PR+G的内插有效抗生素浓度更高(80.3±15.5µG /mL比199.9±81µG /mL,平均差异为-120 [95% CI -153至-86];P < 0.001)。所有抗生素水泥制品在第1天都有相应的抑制区,对应于高于MIC (> 32 mg/L)的内插浓度。即使在第2天,只有MRSA的浓度维持在MIC以上,PMV+G和PR+G的浓度维持在MSSE以上。SP+T第1天后,所有生物的浓度均降至MIC以下。在AUC中也看到了类似的结果,作为5天内洗脱总抗生素的替代品,PMV+G和PR+G在5天内洗脱的抗生素都比SP+T多,除了MSSE,这表明AUC没有差异。结论:在本研究中,与同一厂家生产的高粘度ALBC相比,中粘度ALBC具有相似的洗脱性能。与来自Simplex的低粘度ALBC相比,来自Palacos的中粘度和高粘度ALBC水泥产品在5天的时间内都表现出更好的体外抗生素洗脱性能和对四种常见PJI病原体的活性。临床相关性:这项体外研究表明,与Palacos高粘度ALBC (PR+G)相比,外科医生可以选择Palacos中粘度ALBC (PMV+G)进行全关节应用,而不会影响Palacos高粘度ALBC (PR+G)的体外抗生素洗脱性能,并且Palacos中粘度和高粘度ALBC配方与Simplex低粘度ALBC (SP+T)相比,可能对四种常见PJI病原体中的三种具有更好的活性。然而,需要更多的相关研究来确定这些ALBC产品的体内活性以及常规使用ALBC的总体疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
11.90%
发文量
722
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® is a leading peer-reviewed journal devoted to the dissemination of new and important orthopaedic knowledge. CORR® brings readers the latest clinical and basic research, along with columns, commentaries, and interviews with authors.
期刊最新文献
CORR® Curriculum-Orthopaedic Education: How Should Residents Be Using Research Protected Time for Scholarly Activities? CORR Insights®: How to Improve Patient Selection in Individuals With Lower Extremity Amputation Using a Bone-anchored Prosthesis. CORR Insights®: Total Arthroplasty Versus Trapeziectomy With Ligamentoplasty for Trapeziometacarpal Osteoarthritis: 5-year Outcomes. Does Periacetabular Osteotomy Affect the Load Distribution on the Knee? How Do Individuals Perceive Diagnostic Labels and Explanations for Hip Pain? A Qualitative Study Among Adults With Persistent Hip Pain.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1