ANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITY OF ION-SUBSTITUTED CALCIUM PHOSPHATES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Le résumé fourni par la source

Prosthetic Joint Infection (PJI) is a devastating complication that can occur after total joint replacement surgery. With increasing antimicrobial resistance, there is a need for non-antibiotic approaches to treat and prevent PJI. Doping calcium phosphates with antimicrobial ions shows promise for these purposes. This systematic review aims to search and summarise the evidence-base for the potential of calcium phosphates doped with different antimicrobial ions. A systematic review was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Web-Of-Science, Cochrane Library and Emcare of in vitro and animal studies on the antimicrobial activity of (co)substituted calcium phosphates according to PRIMSA guidelines.. The research protocol, listing search terms and in/exclusion criteria, was registered a priori at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/HEP18U . Data was extracted regarding ions, micro-organisms and antimicrobial activity. The search retrieved 1017 hits of which 148 papers were included. The substitution of 33 different ions was reported. Silver (n= 46), zinc (n=39), copper (n=18) and magnesium (n=14) were the most commonly doped ions. 36 different micro-organisms were studied of which E. coli (n=109), S. aureus (n=99), and C. albicans (n=22) were the most common. 6 different outcomes were reported, most commonly the K-ratio (n=53), the log CFU (n=41) and the bacterial inhibition zone (n=39). A validated outcome for the evaluation of biofilm prevention was lacking. There was considerable heterogeneity in studied ions, micro-organisms and reported outcomes. A lack of clearly defined reporting guidelines in the field of antimicrobial materials has led to the use of clinically irrelevant micro-organisms and a general lack of consistency of the methods used and the reported results. Currently, there is no universally accepted measure for the effectiveness required from biomaterials for treatment and prevention of PJI.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.