It is expected that the projected increased usage of implantable devices in medicine will result in a natural rise in the number of infections related to these cases. Some patients are unable to autonomously prevent formation of biofilm on implant surfaces. Suppression of the local peri-implant immune response is an important contributory factor. Substantial avascular scar tissue encountered during revision joint replacement surgery places these cases at an especially high risk of periprosthetic joint infection. A critical pathogenic event in the process of biofilm formation is bacterial adhesion. Prevention of biomaterial-associated infections should be concurrently focused on at least two targets: inhibition of biofilm formation and minimizing local immune response suppression. Current knowledge of antimicrobial surface treatments suitable for prevention of prosthetic joint infection is reviewed. Several surface treatment modalities have been proposed. Minimizing bacterial adhesion, biofilm formation inhibition, and bactericidal approaches are discussed. The ultimate anti-infective surface should be “smart” and responsive to even the lowest bacterial load. While research in this field is promising, there appears to be a great discrepancy between proposed and clinically implemented strategies, and there is urgent need for translational science focusing on this topic.
9 April 2013 in Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A
Clinical studies, as well as in vitro and in vivo experiments have demonstrated that byproducts from joint replacements induce an inflammatory reaction that can result in periprosthetic osteolysis (PPOL) and aseptic loosening (AL). Particle-stimulated macrophages and other cells release cytokines, chemokines, and other pro-inflammatory substances that perpetuate chronic inflammation, induce osteoclastic bone resorption and suppress bone formation. Differentiation, maturation, activation, and survival of osteoclasts at the bone–implant interface are under the control of the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-Β ligand (RANKL)-dependent pathways, and the transcription factors like nuclear factor κB (NF-κB) and activator protein-1 (AP-1). Mechanical factors such as prosthetic micromotion and oscillations in fluid pressures also contribute to PPOL. The treatment for progressive PPOL is only surgical. In order to mitigate ongoing loss of host bone, a number of non-operative approaches have been proposed. However, except for the use of bisphosphonates in selected cases, none are evidence based. To date, the most successful and effective approach to preventing PPOL is usage of wear-resistant bearing couples in combination with advanced implant designs, reducing the load of metallic and polymer particles. These innovations have significantly decreased the revision rate due to AL and PPOL in the last decade.
Numerous studies provide detailed insight into the triggering and amplification mechanisms of the inflammatory response associated with prosthetic wear particles, promoting final dominance of bone resorption over bone formation in multiple bone multicellular units around an implant. In fact, inflammation is a highly regulated process tightly linked to simultaneous stimulation of tissue protective and regenerative mechanisms in order to prevent collateral damage of periprosthetic tissues. A variety of cytokines, chemokines, hormones and specific cell populations, including macrophages, dendritic and stem cells, attempt to balance tissue architecture and minimize inflammation. Based on this fact, we postulate that the local tissue homeostatic mechanisms more effectively regulate the pro-inflammatory/pro-osteolytic cells/pathways in patients with none/mild periprosthetic osteolysis (PPOL) than in patients with severe PPOL. In this line of thinking, ‘particle disease theory’ can be understood, at least partially, in terms of the failure of local tissue homeostatic mechanisms. As a result, we envision focusing current research on homeostatic mechanisms in addition to traditional efforts to elucidate details of pro-inflammatory/pro-osteolytic pathways. We believe this approach could open new avenues for research and potential therapeutic strategies.