Bioactive glass for long bone infection: a systematic review

Abstract Background Long bone infection remains a challenging situation for the orthopaedic surgeon. For most, treatment comprises a thorough debridement of all the infected bone, the filling of the resultant cavity with a bone substitute, and general antibiotics for a certain time. However, the typ...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Injury 2015-12, Vol.46, p.S3-S7
Main Authors: Aurégan, Jean-Charles, Bégué, Thierry
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Anti-Bacterial Agents - therapeutic use
bioactive glass
bone infection
Bone Substitutes - therapeutic use
Combined Modality Therapy
Debridement - methods
Female
Glass
Humans
Orthopedics
osteomyelitis
Osteomyelitis - physiopathology
Osteomyelitis - surgery
Wound Healing
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Background Long bone infection remains a challenging situation for the orthopaedic surgeon. For most, treatment comprises a thorough debridement of all the infected bone, the filling of the resultant cavity with a bone substitute, and general antibiotics for a certain time. However, the type of bone substitute to insert in the cavity is still debated. Purpose In this study, we aimed to systematically review the results of studies using bioactive glass for long bone infection in the clinical setting. Material and method We searched systematically Medline via Pubmed for studies published until August 2015 that report the results of bioactive glass for long bone infection in humans. Results Three studies, including a total of 41 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 46.5 (16–84). Twenty-nine were male and twelve were female. Period of inclusion went from 2007 to 2013. All the patients had a clinically and radiologically diagnosed osteomyelitis. They all underwent a state of the art surgical procedure to address osteomyelitis. All the patients were implanted with BAG-S53P4 granules (BonAlive Biomaterials Ltd, Turku, Finland) to fill in the resultant cavity. Mean volume inserted was 16.8 milliliters (2–60). After a mean follow-up of 21 months (10–38), three cases of osteomyelitis recurred. In two cases, a new procedure was performed. No complication directly related to the bioactive glass was reported. Discussion Despite a limited use for long bone infection in humans, bioactive glass seems to be an interesting option as bone substitute after thorough bone debridement and skin coverage. It associates antibacterial activities, osteoconductive properties and vascular stimulation. Conclusion From this review, bioactive glass seems to be a useful bone substitute for long bone infection in humans. Few recurrences occurred after its use. In these cases, the volume of bone glass to insert was frequently underestimated and/or the skin coverage not adequate.
ISSN:0020-1383
1879-0267
DOI:10.1016/S0020-1383(15)30048-6