Premium
Infection burden and immunological responses are equivalent for polymeric and metallic implant materials in vitro and in a murine model of fracture‐related infection
Author(s) -
Rochford Edward T. J.,
Sabaté Brescó Marina,
Poulsson Alexandra H. C.,
Kluge Katharina,
Zeiter Stephan,
Ziegler Mario,
O'Mahony Liam,
Richards Robert Geoff,
Moriarty Thomas Fintan
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of biomedical materials research part b: applied biomaterials
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.665
H-Index - 108
eISSN - 1552-4981
pISSN - 1552-4973
DOI - 10.1002/jbm.b.34202
Subject(s) - peek , in vivo , stimulation , materials science , in vitro , biomaterial , secretion , titanium , implant , immune system , staphylococcus aureus , microbiology and biotechnology , biomedical engineering , biophysics , bacteria , immunology , medicine , biology , composite material , nanotechnology , surgery , biochemistry , metallurgy , polymer , genetics
The development of an infection is a major complication for some patients with implanted biomaterials. Whether the material or surface composition of the used biomaterial influences infection has not been directly compared for key biomaterials currently in use in human patients. We conducted a thorough in vitro and in vivo investigation using titanium (Ti) and polyether–ether–ketone (PEEK) as both commercially available and as modified equivalents (surface polished Ti, and oxygen plasma treated PEEK). Complement activation and cytokine secretion of cell of the immune system was assessed in vitro for all materials in the absence and presence of bacterial stimulants. In a follow‐up in vivo study, we monitored bacterial infection associated with clinically available and standard Ti and PEEK inoculated with Staphylococcus aureus. Complement activation was affected by material choice in the absence of bacterial stimulation, although the material based differences were largely lost upon bacterial stimulation. In the in vivo study, the bacterial burden, histological response and cytokine secretion suggests that there is no significant difference between both PEEK and Ti. In conclusion, the underlying material has a certain impact in the absence of bacterial stimulation, however, in the presence of bacterial stimulation, bacteria seem to dictate the responses in a manner that overshadows the influence of material surface properties. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 107B: 1095–1106, 2019.