Dergiler / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2020 / Cilt: 54 - Sayı: 5

Biomechanical comparison of tigecycline loaded bone cement with vancomycin and daptomycin loaded bone cements

Sayfa
535–540
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

In addition, all statistically significant results from between groups comparisons revealed higher tensile and compressive mechanical strength values for the tigecycline groups (p<0.0011).Conclusion: Evidence from this study has demonstrated that tigecycline loaded bone cement may have no mechanical disadvantage compared with vancomycin and daptomycin loaded bone cements in terms of mechanical strength when used at defined concentrations.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: The objectives of this study were “1” to analyze the compressive and tensile mechanical strength characteristics of tigecycline loaded bone cement and “2” to compare them with those of vancomycin and daptomycin loaded bone cements which are used in prosthetic joint infections complicated with resistant microorganisms.Methods: In this study, three experimental groups, which consisted of vancomycin (subgroups containing 1 g, 2 g, and 3 g vancomycin), daptomycin (subgroups containing 0.5 g, 1 g, and 1.5 g daptomycin), and tigecycline (subgroups containing 50 mg, 100 mg, and 150 mg tigecycline) and one control group without antibiotics were used.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:For each antibiotic group, including the control group, 10 samples were tested.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:In addition, all statistically significant results from between groups comparisons revealed higher tensile and compressive mechanical strength values for the tigecycline groups (p<0.0011).Conclusion: Evidence from this study has demonstrated that tigecycline loaded bone cement may have no mechanical disadvantage compared with vancomycin and daptomycin loaded bone cements in terms of mechanical strength when used at defined concentrations.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:10 samples
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Objective: The objectives of this study were “1” to analyze the compressive and tensile mechanical strength characteristics of tigecycline loaded bone cement and “2” to compare them with those of vancomycin and daptomycin loaded bone cements which are used in prosthetic joint infections complicated with resistant microorganisms.Methods: In this study, three experimental groups, which consisted of vancomycin (subgroups containing 1 g, 2 g, and 3 g vancomycin), daptomycin (subgroups containing 0.5 g, 1 g, and 1.5 g daptomycin), and tigecycline (subgroups containing 50 mg, 100 mg, and 150 mg tigecycline) and one control group without antibiotics were used. Using a standardized protocol, all antibiotic loaded bone cements were prepared. For each antibiotic group, including the control group, 10 samples were tested. All samples were biomechanically tested in terms of compressive strength and tensile strength.Results: Compression tests showed that all determined antibiotic concentrations resulted in a significant decrease when compared with the control group (p 0.0011). In addition, all statistically significant results from between groups comparisons revealed higher tensile and compressive mechanical strength values for the tigecycline groups (p<0.0011).Conclusion: Evidence from this study has demonstrated that tigecycline loaded bone cement may have no mechanical disadvantage compared with vancomycin and daptomycin loaded bone cements in terms of mechanical strength when used at defined concentrations.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

MURATLI, S. K., KARATOSUN, V., UZUN, B., GÜNAL, İ. (2020). Biomechanical comparison of tigecycline loaded bone cement with vancomycin and daptomycin loaded bone cements. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 54 - Sayı: 5, 535–540. https://ajindex.com/articles/354390

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Joseph TN, Chen AL, Di Cesare PE. Use of antibiotic-impregnated cement in total joint arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2003
  2. [Crossref] 2. Trampuz A, Zimmerli W. Antimicrobial agents in orthopaedic surgery: Prophylaxis and treatment. Drugs 2006
  3. [Crossref] 3. Bosco JA, Bookman J, Slover J, Edusei E, Levine B. Principles of antibiotic prophylaxis in total joint arthroplasty: Current concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2015
  4. [Crossref] 4. Witso E. Infections in Orthopaedics. In: Bentley G, editor. European Surgical Orthopaedics and Traumatology, The EFORT Textbook Vol 1. New York-Dordrecht-London: Springer Heidelberg
  5. [Crossref] 5. Zahar A. Local Antibiotic Therapy: Antibiotic-Loaded Cement. In Kendoff D, Morgan-Jones R, Haddad FS, editors. Periprosthetic Joint Infections "Changing Paradigms". Switzerland: Springer International Publishing
  6. [Crossref] 6. Nichol T, Smith TJ, Townsend R, Stockley I, Akid R. Analysis of linezolid and tigecycline as candidates for local prophylaxis via antibiotic-loaded bone cement. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017
  7. [Crossref] 7. Kreis CA, Raschke MJ, Roßlenbroich SB, Tholema-Hans N, Löffler B, Fuchs T. Therapy of intracellular Staphylococcus aureus by tigecyclin. BMC Infect Dis 2013
  8. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-13-267. [Crossref] 8. Hsu YM, Liao CH, Wei YH, et al. Daptomycin-loaded polymethylmethacrylate bone cement for joint arthroplasty surgery. Artif Organs 2014
  9. [Crossref] 9. Athans V, Veve MP, Davis SL. Trowels and tribulations: Review of antimicrobial-impregnated bone cements in prosthetic joint surgery. Pharmacotherapy 2017
  10. [Crossref] 10. Kaplan L, Kurdziel M, Baker KC, Verner J. Characterization of daptomycin-loaded antibiotic cement. Orthopedics 2012
  11. e503-9. [Crossref] 11. Rice DA, Mendez-Vigo L. Daptomycin in bone and joint infections: A review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009
  12. [Crossref] 12. Rodvold KA, Gotfried MH, Cwik M, Korth-Bradley JM, Dukart G, Ellis-Grosse EJ. Serum, tissue and body fluid concentrations of tigecycline after a single 100 mg dose. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006
  13. [Crossref] 13. Verkade EJ, Verhulst CJ, Huijsdens XW, Kluytmans JA. In vitro activity of tigecycline against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, including livestock-associated strains. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2010
  14. [Crossref] 14. Aslam S. Effect of antibacterials o