4.5 Article

A biodegradable delivery system for antibiotics and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2: A potential treatment for infected bone defects

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH
卷 24, 期 3, 页码 327-332

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jor.20049

关键词

biodegradable; delivery system; antibiotics; human bone protein; bone defects

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To produce an osteogenic and bacteriocidal biomaterial for the treatment of infected nonunions or bone defects, a synthetic degradable block copolymer of poly-D,L-lactic acid segments with randomly inserted p-dioxanone and polyethylene glycol (PLA-DX-PEG) segments was mixed with recombinant human BMP-2 (rhBMP-2) and antibiotics at high concentration. We then examined the in vitro elution profile of an antibiotic (teicoplanin) from the polymer, the effects of antibiotics on the bone-inducing capacity of rhBMP-2 or on ectopic new bone formation induced by the rhBMP, and the ability of the polymer to repair bone in a rat cranial defect model. Approximately 40% of teicoplanin was released within the first 24 h, with the remaining amount released steadily over 21 days with no loss of antibacterial activity. The polymer had disappeared by degradation in the phosphate buffered saline (pH 7.4) at the end of the incubation period. The in vivo performance of pellets with antibiotics and rhBMP-2 revealed no significant change in bone yield within the ossicles after 3 weeks. Also, antibiotics had no inhibitory effect on the ability of rhBMP2 to repair cranial defects. Indeed, when the defect was filled by a polymer disc loaded with rhBMP-2 with or without teicoplanin, the defect was repaired by new bone, and normal anatomy was restored within 6 weeks. In conclusion, the PLA/DX/PEG polymer appears to work as effectively for antibiotics as it does for rhBMP-2. Additionally, the biological activity of rhBMP-2 was retained irrespective of the presence of antibiotics. (c) 2006 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据