Elsevier

Biomaterials

Volume 34, Issue 13, April 2013, Pages 3174-3183
Biomaterials

Leading opinion
The future of biologic coatings for orthopaedic implants

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.01.074Get rights and content

Abstract

Implants are widely used for orthopaedic applications such as fixing fractures, repairing non-unions, obtaining a joint arthrodesis, total joint arthroplasty, spinal reconstruction, and soft tissue anchorage. Previously, orthopaedic implants were designed simply as mechanical devices; the biological aspects of the implant were a byproduct of stable internal/external fixation of the device to the surrounding bone or soft tissue. More recently, biologic coatings have been incorporated into orthopaedic implants in order to modulate the surrounding biological environment. This opinion article reviews current and potential future use of biologic coatings for orthopaedic implants to facilitate osseointegration and mitigate possible adverse tissue responses including the foreign body reaction and implant infection. While many of these coatings are still in the preclinical testing stage, bioengineers, material scientists and surgeons continue to explore surface coatings as a means of improving clinical outcome of patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery.

Introduction

Orthopaedic implants are used routinely worldwide for fixation of long bone fractures and non-unions, for correction and stabilization of spinal fractures and deformities, for replacement of arthritic joints, and for other orthopaedic and maxillofacial applications. The primary aim of these devices is to provide mechanical stabilization so that optimal alignment and function of bone can be maintained during physiologic loading of bones and joints. In this way, the implants facilitate the relief of pain and more normal use of the injured limb or body part, and thus foster earlier return to function. By providing stability to bone fractures for example, orthopaedic implants indirectly assist in the biological aspects of bone healing by decreasing unwanted shear stress [1]. Similarly, devices that minimize micromotion at the bone-implant interface of cementless joint replacements, and unwanted movements between opposed bone surfaces in spinal fusion will enhance bone formation and remodelling [2], [3], [4]. The mechanical and biological aspects of bone healing are closely inter-related and ultimately determine final clinical outcome.

Historically, the design of orthopaedic fixation and reconstructive devices has focused primarily on the mechanical properties and function of the implant. In fracture fixation for example, this concept purports that bone will “heal by itself” if appropriately stabilized. However, this approach is shortsighted. Indeed in the USA, there are approximately 600,000 fractures with delayed union and 100,000 cases of nonunion each year [5]. Cementless joint replacements do not always osseointegrate with the surrounding bone, which may lead to implant migration and possible loosening [6]. Spinal fusion is not always a certainty [4].

The ultimate purpose of surgery employing a device is to help obtain, restore, or improve pre-morbid function. This goal may be compromised due to many potential factors including patient characteristics (e.g. chronic systemic metabolic disease, chemotherapy, smoking, excessive alcohol use, diabetes, medications, poor compliance with rehabilitation), local factors (e.g. difficult anatomical site and high degree of comminution of fractures, extensive injury to the soft tissue bed, infection, poor vascular supply, irradiation), and surgical and implant factors (suboptimal bone reduction, surgical technique, or application of the implant, inadequate implant characteristics) [5]. These facts have stimulated research into how the biological milieu of the implant bed could be modulated in order to help ensure a more robust bone healing response. The potential advantages are readily apparent: more vigorous, and expeditious bone healing would allow earlier rehabilitation and return of function. Although systemic pharmacological treatments to accomplish this goal have been considered, local strategies have several advantages including local targeted anatomic delivery of one or more biologics to the injury site, lower overall dosage requirements, and mitigation of potentially serious systemic side effects. This review will address strategies to improve bone healing (for example of fractures, non-unions, spinal fusion) and implant osseointegration for joint replacement via local delivery of molecules via implant coatings.

Orthopaedic devices may function in an appropriate fashion mechanically and biologically, however acute and chronic infection are potential dreaded complications that may necessitate further surgery. Infections of orthopaedic fracture and reconstructive devices occur in approximately 5% of cases and total about 100,000 cases per year in the USA alone [7], [8]. For primary total hip replacement, the surgical site infection rate varies from about 0.2% to 2.2% [9]. Despite a comprehensive infection surveillance program, the rate of deep surgical site infection for primary hip replacement in the Kaiser Permanente registry in the USA was recently reported to be 0.51% [9]. Infections in spine surgery occur in approximately 2%–5% of cases [10]. Implant infections are a substantial cause of morbidity and even mortality, and are very costly to the patient and society in general [8].

Implant infections are not only a consequence of host factors (such as obesity and chronic medical conditions) and surgical technique [9]. The anatomical site and characteristics of the implanted device including size, shape, material, topography and intended use are important variables [7]. The use of prophylactic systemic antibiotics has been shown to dramatically reduce the incidence of implant related infections [11], [12]. However, there are additional opportunities for local delivery of antibiotics and other anti-infective agents. Antibiotic containing bone cements appear to reduce the risk of infection in joint replacement surgery, although this point is controversial [12], [13]. Thus there are ongoing opportunities to coat the implant directly with antibiotics or other biomolecules to reduce implant related infections [10], [14].

This opinion paper reviews methods to coat prostheses implanted into bone in order to enhance osseointegration and mitigate adverse events associated with the foreign body response or infection. These implants of the future will hopefully modulate the local environment in a favourable manner with minimal risks, to improve patient outcome.

Section snippets

Mechanism of action and clinical results

Bone is a composite structure composed of cells, protein (mainly collagen and other signalling proteins) and mineral. The inorganic mineral phase of bone constitutes about 50% of its weight and is mainly composed of carbonated hydroxyapatite (HA). Coating the surface with HA has been shown to improve osseointegration of a cementless metallic prosthesis within bone [15], [16]. HA is chemically similar to the apatite of the host's bone, and is a source of calcium and phosphate to the bone-HA

The foreign body reaction to implants or osteoclasts

Bone, like other tissues, responds to acute injury by a series of events that constitute an acute inflammatory reaction. Insertion of an implant of any type within the body including bone evokes an inflammatory and (usually) limited foreign body reaction [56]. During use of an orthopaedic implant, wear particles and other byproducts are generated from the bearing surfaces of joint replacements, and non-articulating implant surfaces that impinge or fret (e.g. screws in a plate for fracture

Infection of orthopaedic implants

Orthopaedic implant-associated infection (OII) is one of the most common complications associated with devices for fracture fixation, joint replacement and spine surgery. Bacterial colonization and biofilm formation on the implanted device may lead to acute and chronic infection of the underlying bone and the adjacent soft tissues [71]. Biofilm on the implant surface protects the microorganisms from the host immune system and antibiotic therapy [13], [72], [73], [74], [75] which may lead to

Discussion and conclusion

The use of orthopaedic implants has grown dramatically in all subspecialities in orthopaedic surgery. These mechanical devices are used routinely to stabilize fractures, non-unions, and arthrodeses, for reconstruction of arthritic joints during total joint arthroplasty, for correction of spinal deformities and in other orthopaedic conditions. Recently, the coating of implants has engendered much interest in order to improve osseointegration, and prevent adverse tissue reactions such as

Acknowledgements

This work has been funded in part by NIH grants 2R01AR055650-05 and 1R01AR063717-01 and the Ellenburg Chair in Surgery, Stanford University (SBG), and the McCormick Faculty Award and Bio-X Interdisciplinary Initiative Grant (FY).

References (119)

  • A.M. Wojtowicz et al.

    Coating of biomaterial scaffolds with the collagen-mimetic peptide GFOGER for bone defect repair

    Biomaterials

    (2010)
  • N.J. Shah et al.

    Tunable dual growth factor delivery from polyelectrolyte multilayer films

    Biomaterials

    (2011)
  • J.M. Anderson et al.

    Foreign body reaction to biomaterials

    Semin Immunol

    (2008)
  • E.L. Wallace et al.

    Meta-analysis of long-term outcomes for drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in primary percutaneous coronary interventions for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

    Am J Cardiol

    (2012)
  • J.H. Lin

    Bisphosphonates: a review of their pharmacokinetic properties

    Bone

    (1996)
  • B. Peter et al.

    Calcium phosphate drug delivery system: influence of local zoledronate release on bone implant osteointegration

    Bone

    (2005)
  • P. Tengvall et al.

    Surface immobilized bisphosphonate improves stainless-steel screw fixation in rats

    Biomaterials

    (2004)
  • L.G. Harris et al.

    Staphylococci and implant surfaces: a review

    Injury

    (2006)
  • T. Fowler et al.

    Cellular invasion by Staphylococcus aureus involves a fibronectin bridge between the bacterial fibronectin-binding MSCRAMMs and host cell beta1 integrins

    Eur J Cell Biol

    (2000)
  • A.M. Gallardo-Moreno et al.

    In vitro biocompatibility and bacterial adhesion of physico-chemically modified Ti6Al4V surface by means of UV irradiation

    Acta Biomater

    (2009)
  • F. Zhang et al.

    Silk-functionalized titanium surfaces for enhancing osteoblast functions and reducing bacterial adhesion

    Biomaterials

    (2008)
  • L.G. Harris et al.

    Staphylococcus aureus adhesion to titanium oxide surfaces coated with non-functionalized and peptide-functionalized poly(L-lysine)-grafted-poly(ethylene glycol) copolymers

    Biomaterials

    (2004)
  • V. Alt et al.

    The effects of combined gentamicin-hydroxyapatite coating for cementless joint prostheses on the reduction of infection rates in a rabbit infection prophylaxis model

    Biomaterials

    (2006)
  • M. Stigter et al.

    Incorporation of different antibiotics into carbonated hydroxyapatite coatings on titanium implants, release and antibiotic efficacy

    J Control Release

    (2004)
  • S. Radin et al.

    Calcium phosphate ceramic coatings as carriers of vancomycin

    Biomaterials

    (1997)
  • H. Gautier et al.

    Association of vancomycin and calcium phosphate by dynamic compaction: in vitro characterization and microbiological activity

    Biomaterials

    (2001)
  • H. Gautier et al.

    Isostatic compression, a new process for incorporating vancomycin into biphasic calcium phosphate: comparison with a classical method

    Biomaterials

    (2000)
  • O. Guillaume et al.

    Multilayer, degradable coating as a carrier for the sustained release of antibiotics: preparation and antimicrobial efficacy in vitro

    J Control Release

    (2012)
  • S. Radin et al.

    Controlled release of vancomycin from thin sol-gel films on titanium alloy fracture plate material

    Biomaterials

    (2007)
  • D.R. Carter et al.

    Mechanobiology of skeletal regeneration

    Clin Orthop Relat Res

    (1998)
  • X. Liu et al.

    Bone ingrowth into a porous coated implant predicted by a mechano-regulatory tissue differentiation algorithm

    Biomech Model Mechanobiol

    (2008)
  • J.C. Steinmann et al.

    Pseudarthrosis of the spine

    Clin Orthop Relat Res

    (1992)
  • J.A. Bishop et al.

    Assessment of compromised fracture healing

    J Am Acad Orthop Surg

    (2012)
  • H.T. Aro et al.

    Low BMD affects initial stability and delays stem osseointegration in cementless total hip arthroplasty in women: a 2-year RSA study of 39 patients

    Acta Orthop

    (2012)
  • T.F. Moriarty et al.

    Infection in fracture fixation: can we influence infection rates through implant design?

    J Mater Sci Mater Med

    (2010)
  • R.O. Darouiche

    Treatment of infections associated with surgical implants

    N Engl J Med

    (2004)
  • R.S. Namba et al.

    Risk factors associated with surgical site infection in 30,491 primary total hip replacements

    J Bone Jt Surg Br

    (2012)
  • C. Della Valle et al.

    Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip and knee

    J Am Acad Orthop Surg

    (2010)
  • E. Jamsen et al.

    Prevention of deep infection in joint replacement surgery

    Acta Orthop

    (2010)
  • H. van de Belt et al.

    Infection of orthopedic implants and the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cements. A review

    Acta Orthop Scand

    (2001)
  • L. Zhao et al.

    Antibacterial coatings on titanium implants

    J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater

    (2009)
  • K. de Groot et al.

    Plasma sprayed coatings of hydroxylapatite

    J Biomed Mater Res

    (1987)
  • R.G. Geesink et al.

    Chemical implant fixation using hydroxyl-apatite coatings. The development of a human total hip prosthesis for chemical fixation to bone using hydroxyl-apatite coatings on titanium substrates

    Clin Orthop Relat Res

    (1987)
  • R.G. Geesink et al.

    Bonding of bone to apatite-coated implants

    J Bone Jt Surg Br

    (1988)
  • J. He et al.

    Collagen-infiltrated porous hydroxyapatite coating and its osteogenic properties: in vitro and in vivo study

    J Biomed Mater Res A

    (2012)
  • R.Z. LeGeros

    Properties of osteoconductive biomaterials: calcium phosphates

    Clin Orthop Relat Res

    (2002)
  • K. Soballe

    Hydroxyapatite ceramic coating for bone implant fixation. Mechanical and histological studies in dogs

    Acta Orthop Scand Suppl

    (1993)
  • K. Soballe et al.

    Hydroxyapatite coating converts fibrous tissue to bone around loaded implants

    J Bone Jt Surg Br

    (1993)
  • M. Jarcho

    Calcium phosphate ceramics as hard tissue prosthetics

    Clin Orthop Relat Res

    (1981)
  • L. Sun et al.

    Surface characteristics and dissolution behavior of plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite coating

    J Biomed Mater Res

    (2002)
  • Cited by (667)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    300 Pasteur Dr., Edwards, R116, Stanford, CA 94305-5341, USA.

    2

    300 Pasteur Dr., Edwards, R105, Stanford, CA 94305-5341, USA.

    View full text