• C L Romanò, N Logoluso, E Meani, D Romanò, E De Vecchi, C Vassena, and L Drago.
• IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute, Department of Reconstructive Surgery of Osteo-articular Infections, Via R Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
• Bone Joint J. 2014 Jun 1;96-B(6):845-50.

AbstractThe treatment of chronic osteomyelitis often includes surgical debridement and filling the resultant void with antibiotic-loaded polymethylmethacrylate cement, bone grafts or bone substitutes. Recently, the use of bioactive glass to treat bone defects in infections has been reported in a limited series of patients. However, no direct comparison between this biomaterial and antibiotic-loaded bone substitute has been performed. In this retrospective study, we compared the safety and efficacy of surgical debridement and local application of the bioactive glass S53P4 in a series of 27 patients affected by chronic osteomyelitis of the long bones (Group A) with two other series, treated respectively with an antibiotic-loaded hydroxyapatite and calcium sulphate compound (Group B; n = 27) or a mixture of tricalcium phosphate and an antibiotic-loaded demineralised bone matrix (Group C; n = 22). Systemic antibiotics were also used in all groups. After comparable periods of follow-up, the control of infection was similar in the three groups. In particular, 25 out of 27 (92.6%) patients of Group A, 24 out of 27 (88.9%) in Group B and 19 out of 22 (86.3%) in Group C showed no infection recurrence at means of 21.8 (12 to 36), 22.1 (12 to 36) and 21.5 (12 to 36) months follow-up, respectively, while Group A showed a reduced wound complication rate. Our results show that patients treated with a bioactive glass without local antibiotics achieved similar eradication of infection and less drainage than those treated with two different antibiotic-loaded calcium-based bone substitutes.©2014 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.

42 keywords...

hide…