Teikoplanin ve siprofloksasin katkılı kemik çimentosunun 1. ve 15. Günlerde mekanik dayanıklılığının karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Amaç:Bu çalışmanın amacı kemik çimentolarına değişik konsantrasyonlarda teikoplanin ve siprofloksasin katılmasının mekanik etkilerinin karşılaştırılması idi.

Çalışma planı: Deneysel bir modelde, teikoplanin ve siprofloksasinin üç farklı dozu (800, 1600 ve 3200 mg) kemik çimentosuna eklendi. Kompresyon ve dört nokta eğme testinin bulunduğu mekanik testler 1. gün ve antibiyotiğin 37°C suda filtrelendiği 15. günde uygulandı. Hiç antibiyotik içermeyen örnekler kontrol grubu olarak kabul edildi. Her antibiyotik konsantrasyonunun 1. ve 15. gündeki mekanik dayanıklılıkları değerlendirildi.

Bulgular: Hem teikoplanin hem de siprofloksasinin, kompresyon ve dört nokta eğme testlerindeki ortalama dayanıklılık değerlerini 1. ve 15. günde anlamlı derecede azalttığı gözlendi (p<0.05). Teikoplanin ortalama dayanım değerleri 1. ve 15. günde yüksek dozlarda her iki testte azalırken (p<0.05), siprofloksasin dayanım değerleri bu dozlarda anlamlı olarak değişmedi. İki ilacın etkileri karşılaştırıldığında, 1. günde 3200 mg grubu ve 15. günde 1600 ve 3200 mg gruplarındaki kompresyon testi değerlerinde ve 15. günde 3200 mg grubundaki dört nokta eğme testi değerlerinde anlamlı farklılıklar vardı.

Çıkarımlar: Teikoplanin ve siprofloksasin katılan kemik çimentosunun biyomekanik özellikleri zayıflamaktadır. Sonuçlarımıza göre, teikoplanine kıyasla siprofloksasinin dayanıklılık üzerindeki negatif etkisi daha kısıtlıdır.

Keywords

• Kemik çimentosu; kırılma noktası; siprofloksasin; teikoplanin

Investigation of mechanical strength of teicoplanin and ciprofloxacin impregnated bone cement on Day 1 and Day 15

Abstract

Objective:The aim of this study was to compare the mechanical effects of different concentrations of teicoplanin and ciprofloxacin addition in bone cement.

Methods: In an experimental design, 3 different doses of teicoplanin and ciprofloxacin (800, 1600 and 3200 mg) were added to bone cement. Mechanical tests using compression and four-point bending tests were performed on Day 1 and after antibiotic leaching in water at 37°C on Day 15. Specimens that contained no antibiotics served as controls. Mechanical strength for each antibiotic concentration on Day 1 and Day 15 were evaluated.

Results: Both teicoplanin and ciprofloxacin significantly decreased the mean strength values in compression and four-point bending tests at Days 1 and 15 (p<0.05). While teicoplanin significantly decreased the mean strength values at high doses in both tests at Days 1 and 15 (p<0.05), ciprofloxacin did not significantly change these values. When the effects of two drugs compared, there were significant differences at the 3200 mg dose at Day 1 and at 1600 and 3200 mg doses at Day 15 in the compression testing and at 3200 mg at Day 15 in the four-point bending test.

Conclusion: Teicoplanin and ciprofloxacin addition may adversely affect the biomechanical strength of bone cement. Ciprofloxacin addition seems to have less of a negative effect on strength than teicoplanin.

Keywords

• Bone cement
• ciprofloxacin
• fracture point
• teicoplanin

References

1. Webb JC, Spencer RF. The role of polymethylmethacry- late bone cement in modern orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007;89:851-7. CrossRef
2. Kuehn KD, Ege W, Gopp U. Acrylic bone cements: composition and properties. Orthop Clin North Am 2005;36:17-28. CrossRef
3. Charnley J. Anchorage of the femoral head prosthesis to the shaft of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1960;42-B:28- 30.
4. Smith DC. The genesis and evolution of acrylic bone ce- ment. Orthop Clin North Am 2005;36:1-10. CrossRef
5. Göğüş A, Akman S, Göksan SB, Bozdağ E. Mechani- cal strength of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement on Day 0 and Day 15: a biomechanical study with Surgical Simplex P and teicoplanin. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2002;36:63-71.
6. Buchholz HW, Elson RA, Heinert K. Antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement: current concepts. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1984;190:96-108.
7. Hanssen AD, Osmon DR, Patel R. Local antibiotic deliv- ery systems: where are we and where are we going? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;437:111-4. CrossRef
8. Mader JT, Calhoun J, Cobos J. In vitro evaluation of an- tibiotic diffusion from antibiotic-impregnated biodegrad- able beads and polymethylmethacrylate beads. Antimi- crob Agents Chemother 1997;41:415-8.

9. Aslan TT, Öztemür Z, Çifçi M, Tezeren G, Öztürk H, Bulut O. Biomechanical properties of ciprofloxacin loaded bone cement. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2013;47:55-9.
10. Adams K, Couch L, Cierny G, Calhoun J, Mader JT. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of antibiotic diffusion from antibiotic-impregnated polymethylmethacrylate beads. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992;278:244-52.
11. DiMaio FR, O’Halloran JJ, Quale JM. In vitro elution of ciprofloxacin from polymethylmethacrylate cement beads. J Orthop Res 1994;12:79-82. CrossRef
12. Chang Y, Chen WC, Hsieh PH, Chen DW, Lee MS, Shih HN, et al. In vitro activities of daptomycin-, vancomycin-, and teicoplanin-loaded polymethylmethacrylate against methicillin-susceptible, methicillin-resistant, and vanco- mycin-intermediate strains of Staphylococcus aureus. An- timicrob Agents Chemother 2011;55:5480-4. CrossRef
13. Öztemür Z, Sümer Z, Tunç T, Pazarcé Ö, Bulut O. The effect of low dose teicoplanin-loaded acrylic bone cement on biocompatibility of bone cement. Acta Microbiol Im- munol Hung 2013;60:117-25. CrossRef
14. Marangoz S. Bone cement. [Article in Turkish] TOTBID Journal 2011;10:103-8.
15. Lilikakis A, Sutcliffe MP. The effect of vancomycin addi- tion to the compression strength of antibiotic-loaded bone cements. Int Orthop 2009;33:815-9. CrossRef
16. Laine JC, Nguyen TQ, Buckley JM, Kim HT. Effects of mixing techniques on vancomycin-impregnated poly- methylmethacrylate. J Arthroplasty 2011;26:1562-6.
17. American Society for Testing and Materials: Standard specification for acrylic bone cement F 451-99a, In: An- nual Book of ASTM Standards. 1999. p. 56-62.
18. Kühn KD. Bone cements. Up-to-date comparison of physical and chemical properties of commercial materials. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag; 2000. p. 126-30.