Current application and future perspectives of antimicrobial degradable bone substitutes for chronic osteomyelitis

Chronic osteomyelitis remains a persistent challenge for the surgeons due to its refractory nature. Generally, treatment involves extensive debridement of necrotic bone, filling of dead space, adequate antimicrobial therapy, bone reconstruction, and rehabilitation. However, the optimal choice of bone substitute to manage the bone defect remains debatable. This paper reviewed the clinical evidence for antimicrobial biodegradable bone substitutes in the treatment of osteomyelitis in recent years. Indeed, this combination was proved to eradicate infection and facilitate bone reconstruction, which might reduce the cost and hospital stay. Handling was associated with increased risk of unwanted side effect to affect bone healing. The study provides some valuable insights into the clinical evaluation of treatment outcomes in the aspects of infection eradication, bone reconstruction, and complications caused by materials. However, achieving complete infection eradication and subsequently perfect bone reconstruction remains challenging in compromised conditions, hence advanced innovative bone substitutes are imperative. In this review, we mainly focus on the desired functional effects of advanced bone substitutes on infection eradication and bone reconstruction from the future perspective. Handling property was optimized to simplify surgery process. It is expected that this review will provide an important opportunity to enhance the understanding of the design and application of innovative biomaterials to synergistically eradicate infection and restore integrity and function of bone.

Outcome of Chronic Foot Osteomyelitis Treated With Hyperbaric Oxygen: An Observational Study

Chronic refractory osteomyelitis of the foot stands as a formidable challenge in medical care, associated with significant morbidity and escalating healthcare costs. Traditional therapeutic approaches, including surgical debridement and systemic antibiotics, often fall short, leaving patients and clinicians in search of more efficacious interventions. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT), an innovative therapeutic modality, has recently emerged as a promising adjunct therapy, offering a beacon of hope in this therapeutic conundrum. In this groundbreaking observational study, we meticulously analyzed the experiences of 80 patients suffering from chronic refractory osteomyelitis of the foot. Following surgical debridement and tailored antibiotic therapy, each patient was treated with HBOT at 2.5 atmospheres absolute for 120 min, 5 days a week, spanning an average of 50 days. Our primary endpoints focused on complete eradication of infection, recurrence metrics, and any adverse effects linked to HBOT. Astonishingly, 68 of the 80 patients (85%) achieved a total infection clearance, maintaining this status through a mean follow-up period of 36 months, all without a single report of HBOT-induced complications. Our compelling findings advocate that HBOT, synergized with standard surgical and antibiotic regimens, can revolutionize the treatment landscape for chronic refractory osteomyelitis of the foot. Given these promising preliminary results, there's an imperative need for extensive research to delineate the long-term advantages and to fine-tune HBOT protocols, potentially paving the way for a new therapeutic gold standard.

High failure rate of 2-stage revision for the infected total elbow arthroplasty: a single institution's experience

BACKGROUND

Despite 2-stage revision being a common treatment for elbow prosthetic joint infection (PJI), failure rates are high. The purpose of this study was to report on a single institution's experience with 2-stage revisions for elbow PJI and determine risk factors for failed eradication of infection. The secondary purpose was to determine risk factors for needing allograft bone at the second stage of revision in the setting of compromised bone stock.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all 2-stage revision total elbow arthroplasties (TEAs) performed for infection at a single institution between 2006 and 2020. Data collected included demographics and treatment course prior to, during, and after 2-stage revision. Radiographs obtained after explantation and operative reports were reviewed to evaluate for partial component retention and incomplete cement removal. The primary outcome was failed eradication of infection, defined as the need for repeat surgery to treat infection after the second-stage revision. The secondary outcome was the use of allograft for compromised bone stock during the second-stage revision. Risk factors for both outcomes were determined.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients were included. Seven patients (37%) had either the humeral or ulnar component retained during the first stage, and 10 (53%) had incomplete removal of cement in either the humerus or ulna. Nine patients (47%) had allograft strut used during reimplantation and reconstruction. Nine patients (47%) failed to eradicate the infection after 2-stage revision. Demographic data were similar between the repeat-infection and nonrepeat-infection groups. Six patients (60%) with retained cement failed compared with 3 patients (33%) with full cement removal (P = .370). Two patients (29%) with a retained component failed compared to 7 patients (58%) with full component removal (P = .350). Allograft was used less frequently when a well-fixed component or cement was retained, with no patients with a retained component needing allograft compared to 9 with complete component removal (P = .003). Three patients (30%) with retained cement needed allograft, compared with 6 patients (67%) who had complete cement removal (P = .179).

CONCLUSION

Nearly half of the patients failed to eradicate infection after 2-stage revision. The data did not demonstrate a clear association between retained cement or implants and risk of recurrent infection. Allograft was used less frequently when a component and cement were retained, possibly serving as a proxy for decreased bone loss during the first stage of revision. Therefore, the unclear benefit of removing well-fixed components and cement need to be carefully considered as it likely leads to compromised bone stock that complicates the second stage of revision.

Comparison of high-dose dual therapy with bismuth-containing quadruple therapy in Helicobacter pylori-infected treatment-naive patients: An open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Bismuth-containing quadruple therapy for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication has a relatively high rate of side effects and high cost, thus the option of a high-dose dual therapy with a high eradication rate and fewer adverse events is a consideration. However, studies of dual therapy are still scarce and are mostly single-center studies with limited generalizability. Large-scale, multicenter studies are required. Our study investigated and compared the effectiveness, adverse events, patient compliance, and costs of high-dose dual therapy with those of bismuth-containing quadruple therapy in H. pylori-infected treatment-naive patients in a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial.

METHOD

Treatment-naive patients infected with H. pylori were randomly assigned to receive high-dose dual therapy (esomeprazole 20 mg 4 times daily and amoxicillin 1000 mg 3 times daily, for 14 days) or bismuth-containing quadruple therapy (esomeprazole 20 mg, amoxicillin 1000 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg, and bismuth potassium citrate 220 mg, all twice daily for 14 days). The effectiveness, adverse events, patient compliance, and costs of both groups were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 700 patients were enrolled. The high-dose dual therapy group (N = 350) achieved eradication rates of 89.4% (intention-to-treat), 90.4% (modified intention-to-treat), and 90.6% (per-protocol), which were similar to rates in the bismuth-containing quadruple therapy group (N = 350), 84.6%, 88.0%, and 88.2%, respectively (p > 0.05). The high-dose dual therapy group had a lower rate of adverse events (12.9% vs. 28.1%, p < 0.001) and lower costs (¥590.2 vs. ¥723.22) compared with the quadruple therapy group, respectively. The compliance of both groups was satisfactory (97.7% high-dose dual vs. 96.8% quadruple, p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

High-dose dual therapy for H. pylori eradication had similar efficacy and compliance, fewer adverse events, and lower costs than bismuth-containing quadruple therapy for treatment-naive patients.

PPI-amoxicillin dual therapy four times daily is superior to guidelines recommended regimens in the Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy within Asia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews suggested that the eradication efficacy of PPI-amoxicillin dual therapy is similar to that of other commonly used regimens. However, it might be affected by the medication frequency. Basic and clinical studies have shown that dual therapy administered four-times daily has a reliable pathophysiological basis and could achieve satisfactory efficacy. Therefore, a systematic review of RCTs of dual therapy and other regimens was conducted to clarify whether dual therapy is superior to guidelines recommended regimens.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The RCTs comparing dual therapy with other regimens were subjected to meta-analysis to evaluate the eradication rate, adverse reactions, and compliance using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Dual therapy administered four-times daily had a higher eradication rate than other regimens (intention-to-treat analysis: 89.7% vs 84.6%, OR: 1.52, 95%CI 1.08-2.14, p = 0.02; per-protocol analysis: 92.6% vs 88.2%, OR: 1.54, 95%CI 1.01-2.34, p = 0.04). In first-line therapy, according to intention-to-treat analysis, the eradication rate of dual therapy was higher than other regimens (89.8% vs 84.2%, OR: 1.63, 95%CI 1.02-2.61, p = 0.04). In per-protocol analysis, dual therapy showed better efficacy than others (92.9% vs 88.3%, OR: 1.68, 95% CI 0.98-2.89, p = 0.06), but not significantly. In salvage treatment, no significant difference was detected. The safety of dual therapy was significantly better than other regimens (19.6% vs 36.7%, p < 0.01), but no difference was observed in compliance (p = 0.58).

CONCLUSION

PPI-amoxicillin dual therapy administered four-times daily has better efficacy and safety in H. pylori eradication than current guidelines recommended regimens, especially in first-line therapy, and mainly in Asia.

A comparative study of 14-day dual therapy (esomeprazole and amoxicillin four times daily) and triple plus bismuth therapy for first-line Helicobacter pylori infection eradication: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Favorable outcomes in treating H pylori infection using "dual therapy (proton pump inhibitor and amoxicillin four times daily)" have attracted widespread attention. However, there are few reports, and the study results lack agreement. This study aimed to compare the eradication rate, safety, and compliance of naïve-treatment patients with H pylori infection on "dual therapy" with those on "triple plus bismuth (TPB) therapy."

METHODS

This is a non-inferior randomized controlled trial conducted on 760 patients with H pylori infection. The participants were randomly assigned to two eradication groups: dual therapy (esomeprazole 20 mg and amoxicillin 750 mg four times daily) and TPB therapy (esomeprazole 20 mg, amoxicillin 1000 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg, and bismuth potassium citrate 220 mg twice daily) for 14 days. Safety and compliance were assessed within 3 days after eradication. Urea breath test was performed about 8 weeks after eradication to evaluate outcome. Antibiotic resistance and CYP2C19 polymorphism were determined.

RESULTS

Compared with TPB therapy, dual therapy had significantly higher eradication rates in intention-to-treat (87.1% vs 80.5%, rate difference 6.6%), modified intention-to-treat (90.9% vs 85.5%, 5.5%) and per-protocol (92.4% vs 87.8%, 4.7%) analyses, respectively. Adverse reactions in dual therapy group were significantly lower than TPB therapy group (17.6% vs 25.5%, P = .008), and dual therapy group had better compliance (96.3% vs 92.3%, P = .019). Antibiotic resistance and poor compliance were also associated with treatment failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual therapy (esomeprazole and amoxicillin four times daily) was non-inferior to, and even superior to TPB therapy as first-line H pylori eradication.

The management of infected shoulder arthroplasty by two-stage revision

BACKGROUND

There remains no gold standard management for deep shoulder periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). This case series aims to present our experience of two-stage revision arthroplasty, including eradication of infection and reoperation rates.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for shoulder PJI between 2006 and 2015. Cases were confirmed using Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) guidelines. TSA removal, debridement and irrigation preceded antibiotic-loaded cement spacer insertion and a minimum of six weeks intravenous antibiotics. Reimplantation was performed as a second stage following a negative aspirate.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients underwent a first stage procedure (mean age 69 years; 16 male, 12 female). Propionibacterium acnes, Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and Staphylococcus epidermidis were the commonest microorganisms cultured. Five cases had mixed growths and six cases provided no growth. Three patients did not proceed to a second stage. Twenty-five patients underwent reimplantation (mean interval 6.7 months), with 80% remaining infection-free (mean follow-up 38.3 months).

DISCUSSION

Managing complex and late presentation shoulder PJI with two-stage revision is associated with high rates of infection eradication (80%). In the absence of a management consensus, our experience supports two-stage revision arthroplasty for eradicating infection in this complex patient group.

Global epidemiology of viral hepatitis and national needs for complete control

INTRODUCTION

The World Health Organization recognizes that viral hepatitis is not only a massive public health issue but also a huge opportunity to improve quality of life and equity at a global level. Viral hepatitis causes about 1.5 million deaths each year and significantly affects the quality of life of hundreds of millions of people. To date, frail individuals in high-income countries and people living in low-income settings are paying the heaviest tool. Areas covered. Here we present a broad discussion on current knowledge and topical issues about the hepatitis pandemic. The report includes a structured overview of global epidemiology, including the definition of specific local epidemic profiles for each hepatitis agents (HAV, HBV, HCV, and HEV), and a perspective about the critical actions needed for achieving a complete control. Expert commentary. The control of viral hepatitis is currently, ethically urgent and even economically convenient. There is a wide consensus that viral hepatitis can be controlled through comprehensive intervention tailored on local needs addressing the issue of viral hepatitis as a unique public health issue. These strategies should include: (1) primary prevention (including vaccination and improved infection control), (2) improving diagnosis rate, and (3) management of existing cases of infections.