Effect of Antibacterial Enoxacin on the Properties of Injectable Nano-hydroxyapatite/Polyurethane Cement for Bone Repairing
-
Published:2022-02-21
Issue:2
Volume:19
Page:483-496
-
ISSN:1672-6529
-
Container-title:Journal of Bionic Engineering
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:J Bionic Eng
Author:
Zhang Jinzheng, Lei Xiaoyu, Tang Jiajing, Chen Jie, Zhao Qing, Fang Wei, Zhang Yinglong, Li Yubao, Zuo YiORCID
Abstract
AbstractBiomaterial-associated infection (BAI) is a kind of serious post-operative complication in orthopaedic surgery. Antibiotic-loaded bone cement shines a light on BAI prevention for convenient manipulation and complex filling. To this aim, we designed an antibacterial bone cement based on Nano-hydroxyapatite/Polyurethane (PUHA) loading with antibiotic Enoxacin (EN). The distinct shear-thinning behavior of the prepolymers was observed, indicating a good injectability. The PUHA bone cement possessed a suitable curing speed, and the addition of EN might slightly expedite the curing process and enhance the mechanical properties. The EN release profile indicated that the EN-loaded bone cement could reach the minimum inhibitory concentration in 2 h, and sustainedly released EN for almost 8 days, exhibiting an antibacterial delivery potential. Antibacterial test further confirmed the antibacterial ability of EN-loaded bone cement is in a dose-dependent manner. However, the osteogenic performance of drug-loaded bone cement with high dosage is not as good as antibacterial activity. When the EN concentration of antibacterial cement was lower than 32 μg⋅mL−1, the proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of rat mesenchymal stem cells could be significantly promoted. Overall, this study verified the potential of the EN-loaded PUHA bone cement in anti-infection and osteogenesis for bone repairing.
Funder
National Key Research and Development Program of China Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Bioengineering,Biophysics,Biotechnology
Reference51 articles.
1. Stromsoe, K. (2004). Fracture fixation problems in osteoporosis. Injury, 35, 107–113. 2. Steinmetz, S., Wernly, D., Moerenhout, K., Trampuz, A., & Borens, O. (2019). Infection after fracture fixation. EFORT Open Reviews, 4, 468–475. 3. Henkelmann, R., Frosch, K. H., Glaab, R., Lill, C., Seybold, D., Josten, C., & Hepp, P. (2017). Infection following fractures of the proximal tibia—A systematic review of incidence and outcome. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 18, 481–489. 4. von Rüden, C., & Augat, P. (2016). Failure of fracture fixation in osteoporotic bone. Injury, 47, S3–S10. 5. Herrera-Perez, M., Diaz-Fernandez, R., Rendon-Diaz, D., Boluda-Mengod, J., Pais-Brito, J. L., & Tejero, S. (2020). Tibiotalocalcaneal fusion with antibiotic cement-coated nails for refractory deep infection after ankle ORIF. Foot Ankle International, 41, 1391–1397.
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|