Lorenzo Drago

Prof. Lorenzo Drago

University of Milan
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

33Years (1994-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 October 2015 in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CRCARLO ROMANO
CARLO ROMANO
SSSara Scarponi
Sara Scarponi
EGEnrico Gallazzi
Enrico Gallazzi
DRDelia Romanò
Delia Romanò
Lorenzo DragoLorenzo Drago
Lorenzo Drago
Implanted biomaterials play a key role in current success of orthopedic and trauma surgery. However, implant-related infections remain among the leading reasons for failure with high economical and social associated costs. According to the current knowledge, probably the most critical pathogenic event in the development of implant-related infection is biofilm formation, which starts immediately after bacterial adhesion on an implant and effectively protects the microorganisms from the immune system and systemic antibiotics. A rationale, modern prevention of biomaterial-associated infections should then specifically focus on inhibition of both bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation. Nonetheless, currently available prophylactic measures, although partially effective in reducing surgical site infections, are not based on the pathogenesis of biofilm-related infections and unacceptable high rates of septic complications, especially in high-risk patients and procedures, are still reported. In the last decade, several studies have investigated the ability of implant surface modifications to minimize bacterial adhesion, inhibit biofilm formation, and provide effective bacterial killing to protect implanted biomaterials, even if there still is a great discrepancy between proposed and clinically implemented strategies and a lack of a common language to evaluate them. To move a step forward towards a more systematic approach in this promising but complicated field, here we provide a detailed overview and an original classification of the various technologies under study or already in the market. We may distinguish the following: 1. Passive surface finishing/modification (PSM): passive coatings that do not release bactericidal agents to the surrounding tissues, but are aimed at preventing or reducing bacterial adhesion through surface chemistry and/or structure modifications; 2. Active surface finishing/modification (ASM): active coatings that feature pharmacologically active pre-incorporated bactericidal agents; and 3. Local carriers or coatings (LCC): local antibacterial carriers or coatings, biodegradable or not, applied at the time of the surgical procedure, immediately prior or at the same time of the implant and around it. Classifying different technologies may be useful in order to better compare different solutions, to improve the design of validation tests and, hopefully, to improve and speed up the regulatory process in this rapidly evolving field.

1 February 2019 in The Journal of Arthroplasty
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
NSNoam Shohat
Noam Shohat
TBThomas Bauer
Thomas Bauer
MBMartin Buttaro
Martin Buttaro
NBNicolaas Budhiparama
Nicolaas Budhiparama
JCJames Cashman
James Cashman
WZWerner Zimmerli
Werner Zimmerli

1 December 2016 in Injury
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
IMIlaria Morelli
Ilaria Morelli
Lorenzo DragoLorenzo Drago
Lorenzo Drago
DGDavid A. George
David A. George
EGEnrico Gallazzi
Enrico Gallazzi
SSSara Scarponi
Sara Scarponi
CRCARLO ROMANO
CARLO ROMANO

24 February 2018 in Materials
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Lorenzo DragoLorenzo Drago
Lorenzo Drago
MTMarco Toscano
Marco Toscano
MBMarta Bottagisio
Marta Bottagisio
Bone defects caused by trauma or pathological events are major clinical and socioeconomic burdens. Thus, the efforts of regenerative medicine have been focused on the development of non-biodegradable materials resembling bone features. Consequently, the use of bioactive glass as a promising alternative to inert graft materials has been proposed. Bioactive glass is a synthetic silica-based material with excellent mechanical properties able to bond to the host bone tissue. Indeed, when immersed in physiological fluids, bioactive glass reacts, developing an apatite layer on the granule’s surface, playing a key role in the osteogenesis process. Moreover, the contact of bioactive glass with biological fluids results in the increase of osmotic pressure and pH due to the leaching of ions from granules’ surface, thus making the surrounding environment hostile to microbial growth. The bioactive glass antimicrobial activity is effective against a wide selection of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, either in planktonic or sessile forms. Furthermore, bioglass is able to reduce pathogens’ biofilm production. For the aforementioned reasons, the use of bioactive glass might be a promising solution for the reconstruction of bone defects, as well as for the treatment and eradication of bone infections, characterized by bone necrosis and destruction of the bone structure.

1 August 1999 in International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MGM.R Gismondo
M.R Gismondo
Lorenzo DragoLorenzo Drago
Lorenzo Drago
ALA Lombardi
A Lombardi

1 January 2013 in BMC Microbiology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Lorenzo DragoLorenzo Drago
Lorenzo Drago
MBMonica Bortolin
Monica Bortolin
CVChristian Vassena
Christian Vassena
STSilvio Taschieri
Silvio Taschieri
Massimo Del FabbroMassimo Del Fabbro
Massimo Del Fabbro
Autologous platelet concentrates (PCs) have been extensively used in a variety of medical fields to promote soft and hard tissue regeneration. The significance behind their use lies in the abundance of growth factors in platelets α-granules that promotes wound healing. In addition, antibacterial properties of PCs against various bacteria have been recently pointed out. In this study, the antimicrobial effect of pure platelet-rich plasma (P-PRP) was evaluated against oral cavity microorganisms such as Enterococcus faecalis, Candida albicans, Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus oralis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Blood samples were obtained from 17 patients who underwent oral surgery procedures involving the use of P-PRP. The antibacterial activity of P-PRP, evaluated as the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), was determined through the microdilution twofold serial method.