Clinical Features of Device-Associated Infections

The uses of implantable medical devices are safer and more common since sterilization methods and techniques were established a century ago; however, device-associated infections (DAIs) are still frequent and becoming a leading complication as the number of medical device implantations keeps increasing. This urges the world to develop instructive prevention and treatment strategies for DAIs, producing a publication boom on the design of antibacterial surfaces for implantable medical devices. To help identify the flaws of our current antibacterial designs and advance their clinical translations, the clinical features of DAIs are recently highlighted by Huiliang Cao et al [1].

Biomaterials;Antibacterial surface;Implantable medical devices;Titanium;Biocompatibility

1. Introduction

It was estimated that over 500,000 types of medical devices, such as dental implants, vascular graft/endograft, orthopedic prosthetics, catheters, etc., are currently marketing globally for medical applications [1]. Every year, there are about 10,000,000 dental implants and more than 1,000,000 cardiovascular electronic devices inserted around the world [2][3]. It has been estimated that 100 million urinary catheters are sold worldwide each year [4]. As the population of the aged increases, procedures for implantable medical devices are expected to increase rapidly in the coming years. In the United States of America (USA), the primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is going to grow by 85%, to 1.26 million procedures by 2030 [5]. In Germany, by 2040, the total number of TKA is expected to increase by 45% to over 244,000 procedures; and the incidence rate of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is projected to increase to 437 per 100,000 inhabitants [6]. In the United Kingdom, the volume of hip and knee joint replacement is expected to increase by almost 40% by 2060 [7]. Bacterial infections are one of the most frequent and severe complications associated with the clinical application of implantable medical devices [1]. It was reported that device-associated infections (DAIs), including ventilator-associated pneumonia, catheter-associated urinary tract infection, and central-catheter-associated bloodstream infection), accounted for approximately 26% of all healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in the USA [8]. The annual number of HAIs in European Union countries is about 3.2 million, including 37,000 registered mortalities [9]. The financial burden for the treatment of a DAI is also extraordinarily high. For instance, the average revision costs in the USA for infected hip and knee arthroplasty were approximately USD 80 and 60 thousand, respectively [10]. Additionally, by 2030, the estimated combined annual hospital costs related to arthroplasty infection will rise to USD 1.85 billion in the USA alone [11]. This urges the world to develop instructive prevention and treatment strategies for DAIs.
Accordingly, fundamental research on the development of various antibacterial surfaces has dramatically increased in recent years. Screening for “antibacterial surface” or “antibacterial coating” in the topic of the articles included in the Web of Science (www.webofscience.com; accessed on 14 February 2022) can hit more than 50,000 records between the years 1996 and 2021. Around 80% of these records were published during the last decade (between 2012 and 2021), and over 67% of them were published during the last five years (between 2017 and 2021), identifying a boom in developing antibacterial surfaces or coatings. Developing antibacterial surfaces for implantable medical devices also is currently a hot direction among the Chinese communities focusing on biomaterials science and engineering. Typical designs published in the first half of 2022 include copper-bearing titanium [12], surface charge and wettability control in lysozyme [13], light-activatable carbon monoxide gas generation by triiron dodecacarbonyl loaded polydopamine [14], clickable peptide engineered surface [15], calcium-doped titanium targeting blood protein adsorption [16], puncture and ROS (reactive oxygen species) release by nanorod zinc oxide patterns [17], light-stimulated ROS generation by rare-earth elements-doped titanium dioxide coating [18], on-demand antibiotics release by responsive polymers [19][20], and bacteriophage-modified alginate hydrogels [21]. This trend demonstrates that the academic community has already realized the urgency of solving the DAI problem, whereas only a limited number of these innovations have entered clinical applications or clinical studies around the world. A very small number of registered records concerning antibacterial surfaces were found in ClinicalTrials.gov (accessed on 22 May 2022) by searching for “device infection” in the “Condition or disease” field. As shown in Table 1. Site-specific Incidence, silver in metallic or ionic forms is the most popular active ingredient in developing antibacterial medical devices. Currently, a handful of antibacterial surfaces have been branded for clinical uses, which are commonly silver-based and normally custom-made (available on request). These include Acticoat

using magnetron sputtering synthesized nanosilver coatings for wound care [22], MUTARS prosthesis reducing infections by electroplating a metallic-silver surface, METS prosthesis acting against pathogenic bacteria by absorption of ionic silver to anodized titanium implants [23], PorAg prosthesis taking advantage of a controlled electrochemical reaction (do not directly release silver ions) in a titanium-silver alloy for disinfection [23], and PROtect nails administrating gentamicin for prevention of infections in complex open fractures [24]. These commercial promotions have set examples for the development of antibacterial surfaces for implantable medical devices; however, it is still a challenge to improve the quality and efficiency of translational research over those “antibacterial surface” or “antibacterial coating” reports.

Table 1. Antibacterial surface registered for clinical studies *.
Active IngredientsDevicesPhaseLocationsFirst Posted
Silver coatingIntravenous cathetersNot applicableUnited States25 August 2009
Antibiotics (minocycline and rifampin)Antibacterial envelope for a cardiac implantable electronic deviceNot applicableUnited States7 January 2010
Silver-based coatingUrinary catheterNot applicableUnited States10 September 2012
Ionic silverWound dressings for a cardiac implantable electronic devicePhase 4United States24 May 2016
Silver-doped hydroxyapatite coatingOrthopedic implants (hip joint prostheses, intramedullary nails, and external fixator implants)Not applicableTurkey17 November 2017
Gold-silver-palladium coatingInvasive devices (endotracheal tube, central venous catheter, and urinary catheter)Phase 1, 2Brazil11 March 2019
IodineBarrier dressing for a cardiac implantable electronic deviceNot applicableCanada19 October 2020
Antibiotic (gentamycin)Platform wound devicePhase 4United States15 February 2021
* Data were obtained by searching for “device infection” in the “Condition or disease” field of the registered clinical studies conducted around the world on ClinicalTrials.gov (plus manual exclusion, as of 31 March 2022).

2. Clinical Features of Device-Associated Infections

2.1. Site-Specific Incidence

Infection is a common and frequent complication associated with all types of biomedical materials, despite the infection rate varying greatly among different intended uses of various implantable devices (Table 12) [2-38][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61]. Orthopedic implants, such as the ankle, hip, knee, elbow, shoulder, and finger joint prosthetics, are made of metals (titanium alloys, stainless steel, cobalt-chromium alloy, etc.) and are expected to serve long periods (>10 years) in patients’ bodies. Infections of these devices are extremely troublesome [39][1]. Ankle arthroplasty has higher infection rates (2.4–8.9%) than hip (0.4–2.4%) and knee (1–2%) arthroplasty, although they are normally made of the same materials (Table 12). This is remarkably related to wound dehiscence (or prolonged drainage) developed due to the frail soft tissue surrounding ankles and increased chance of delayed wound healing following ankle arthroplasty [3,40][26][62]. The infection situation will be even more serious in revision cases. For example, the incidence of infection for primary hip and knee arthroplasty is around 2% (Table 12), yet this will be possibly as high as 12% and 22% for revision hip and knee arthroplasty, respectively [41][63]. Moreover, the number of infection cases is expected to increase progressively because the number of arthroplasty surgeries is going to grow in the coming years. In Taiwan, China, for instance, a total of 728 hip and knee infection cases were recorded in 2013 and this number was expected to increase markedly to over 3500 by 2035 [42][10]. Not only these metallic implants are connected to bacterial infection, but also polymer devices are susceptible to this complication (Table 12). Examples include breast implants, vascular graft/endograft, cardiovascular electronic devices, and cochlear implants, which are made of silicone, polytetrafluoroethylene, plastics, or Teflon, and have infection incidence high up to 10.2% [9][32], 6% [10][33], 7% [14][37], and 8% [17][40], respectively. Additionally, the DAIs may occur due to the device design. As in brain stimulation implants, the battery of the pulse generator should be replaced typically every 2 years, and such multiple replacements increase the risk of DAIs [23][46]. Furthermore, the incidence of infection is highly determined by the site a device is placed in. As shown in Table 12, the infection rates in urinary catheters (up to 13.7 cases per 1000 catheter-days), cerebrospinal fluid shunts (27%), internal fixation devices (32%), and dental implants (47%) are high. This is because these devices are highly challenged by bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation during their insertion and the subsequent service period. For example, urinary catheters provide routes for the entry of pathogenic bacteria, increasing the risk of acquiring infections [28][51]. Investigations of the bacterial sources in infected shunts also demonstrate that a majority of harmful microbes gained entry from the skin of the patients themselves [43][64]. The risk of complications in fixation of fractures is highly in connection to the low blood supply and elder people are susceptible to infection [36][59]. Additionally, there are more than 500 bacterial species associated with commensals or pathogens within the oral cavity [44][65]. This situation makes the prevention of infections in dental implants extremely complicated. The reported incidence rates for dental implants serving of over 3 and 5 years are 9.25% and 9.6%, respectively, and this rate for implants with service periods of over 10 years is up to 26% [38][61]. More importantly, the prevalence of the pathogenic strains is also associated with specific anatomical locations. Although Staphylococcus Staphylococcus spp.. is the most prevalent microbe associated with all types of bacterial infections, other pathogens can be involved in specific sites. Gram-negative microbes are involved in 10-–40%, 20%, and 35-–55% of vertebral, trauma/fracture, and foot/ankle-related infections [45][66]. Additionally, 15-–30%, 20-–30%, and 30-–80% of polymicrobial infections occur in vertebral, trauma/fracture, and foot/ankle, respectively [45][66]. Different bacterial strains may have different metabolisms and pathogenic mechanisms that require specifically tailored treatments. This is especially critical to cure infections involving multiple pathogenic strains; as a result, developing an all-around antibacterial solution for all medical devices is hardly possible.

Table 12. Incidence of typical device-associated infections.

Device

Device

Materials

Materials

Incidence

Incidence

Reference

Reference

Ankle arthroplasty

Metals (titanium alloys), Ceramic, Polyethylene

2.4–8.9%

[2,3]

[25] [26]

Hip arthroplasty

Metals (titanium alloys, stainless steel), Ceramics (alumina, zirconia), Polymers (polyethylene, polyetheretherketone), Composites

0.4–2.4%

[4,5,42]

[10] [27] [28]

Knee arthroplasty

Metals (titanium alloys, cobalt-chromium alloy), Ceramics (zirconia, titanium nitride), Polymers (polyethylene,)

1–2%

[6,42]

[10] [29]

Breast implants

Silicone

1–10.2%

[7–9]

[30] [31] [32]

Vascular graft/endograft

Polytetrafluoroethylene, Polyethylene Terephthalate, Nitinol

0.16–6%

[10]

[33]

Cardiovascular electronic devices

Plastic polymers, Titanium, Teflon, Gold, Copper

0.9–7%

[11–15]

[34] [35] [36] [37] [38]

Cochlear implant

Teflon, Platinum-iridium alloy, Silicone, Titanium, Ceramics

1–8%

[16–20]

[39] [40] [41] [42] [43]

Brain stimulation implant

Stainless steel, Platinum, Titanium oxide, Iridium oxide

2–10%

[21–23]

[44] [45] [46]

Urinary catheters *

Natural rubber, Polyisoprene, Polymer ethylene vinyl acetate, Polytetrafluoroethylene, Hydrogel

0.1–13.7 cases per 1000 catheter-days

[24–29]

[47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]

Cerebrospinal fluid shunts

Silicone rubber

1.9–27%

[30–34]

[53] [54] [55] [56] [57]

Internal fixation devices

Stainless steel, Cobalt-chromium alloys, Titanium alloys

7–32%

[35,36]

[58] [59]

Dental implants

Titanium, Ceramics (zirconia, alumina)

6–47%

[37,38]

[60] [61]
* The incidence of catheter-associated urinary tract infection is typically expressed as the number of infections per 1000 urinary catheter-days [29][52].

2. The Unpredictable Onset

2.2. The Unpredictable Onset

Device-associated infections become even stickier because of those host-specific, transient, or resident factors (Table 23) [46–58][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79]. The onset of DAI is not predictable, it can onset years after implantation (Cases 1 through 6 in Table 23). The soft tissue envelope around an implant likely degenerates with aging and can be disrupted by an occasional scratch, which may have promoted the infection of an alloplastic chin implant 45 years after placement [46][67]. Breast implants significantly risk bacterial contamination from hematogenous spread of distant antecedent infections. It was reported that the Achromobacter xylosoxidansAchromobacter xylosoxidans (lives in wet soil) from a chronic footsore and streptococcus viridansstreptococcus viridans (lives in the oral cavity) from recurrent periodontitis can cause infection of breast implants even 7 and 25 years after the implantation [47][68]. Staphylococcus epidermidisStaphylococcus epidermidis (S. epidermidisS. epidermidis) can colonize various biomedical implants and escape from the immune clearance and antibiotic treatments, hence possibly causing symptom-free (such as pain, redness, or fever) chronic infection lasting even for 30 years before being identified by clinical approaches [46][69]. Cutibacterium acnesCutibacterium acnes (previously known as propionibacterium acnespropionibacterium acnes), a common conjunctival inhabitant, are slow-growing, anaerobic Gram-positive rods, and can manifest several years or even decades before leading to late infections in orbital implants made of silicone or tantalum [49,50][70][71]. The sources of the pathogens of the DAIs can be host-specific (Cases 7 through 9 in Table 23). DAIs can be initiated by acute illness (e.g., diarrhea developed during a holiday journey [8][31]), penetration of contaminated water during participating in outdoor activities [22][45], or even when the patients play with their pets (bacterial contamination from zoonotic sources) [51][72]. Moreover, the occurrence of DAIs is commonly associated with a compromised immune system in the hosts (Cases 10 and 11 in Table 23). Methotrexate, a folate antagonist, can affect neutrophil chemotaxis and induce apoptosis of T cells and reactivation of opportunistic pathogens; hence chronic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with this kind of drug significantly increases the risk of infections around the battery for brain stimulation [52][73]. Nocardia novaNocardia nova is a common environmental pathogen and rarely affects immunocompetent hosts; however, this species successfully colonized a tibia implant placed in an immunocompetent patient [53][74]. Listeria monocytogenesListeria monocytogenes, a common organism associated with unpasteurized dairy products (e.g., deli meats and unpasteurized cheeses), can induce a periprosthetic joint infection in a patient with a history of diabetes mellitus, asthma, and psoriatic arthritis [54][75]. Anaerobiospirillum succiniciproducensAnaerobiospirillum succiniciproducens, a common settler in the gastrointestinal tract of cats and dogs, can induce a prosthetic hip joint infection in an immunocompromised patient [55][76]. DAIs are normally initiated by bacterial seeding and as a result tissue integration will be impaired quickly; however, some cases failed to identify any organism by cultures [56,57][77][78] and tissue integration was intact after being infected [58][79]. These situations add difficulties to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of DAIs.

Table 23. Representative cases showing the latent period of DAIs.

Case

Case

Devices

Devices

Latent Period

(Post Insertion)

Latent Period
(Post Insertion)

Pathogens

Pathogens

Causes

Causes

Reference

Reference

1

Alloplastic chin implant

45 years

/

After scratching herself (soft tissue degeneration due to aging)

[46]

[67]

2

Breast implant

Seven years

Achromobacter xylosoxidans (a pathogen that lives in wet soil)

Development of a chronic footsore (hematogenous spread from distant bacterial infection sites)

[47]

[68]

3

Breast implant

25 years

Streptococcus viridans (a pathogen that lives in the oral cavity)

After extensive dental treatment (hematogenous spread from distant bacterial infection sites)

[47]

[68]

4

Alloplastic implant

30 years

Staphylococcus epidermidis

Bacterial contamination years before identifying the infection (a symptom-free chronic infection; the pathogen escaped immune clearance and antibiotic treatments)

[48]

[69]

5

Orbital implant

30 years

Cutibacterium acnes (previously known as Propionibacterium acnes )

Bacterial contamination during the primary implantation (the pathogen can manifest for several decades)

[49]

[70]

6

Orbital implant

26 years (implant exposure 10 years before the presentation was documented)

Propionibacterium acnes (renamed Cutibacterium acnes)

Bacterial contamination during the primary implantation or implant exposure during scleral patch graft repair

[50]

[71]

7

Breast Implant

Five months

Salmonella serogroup C

Hematogenous seeding due to developing of diarrhea during a holiday travel

[8]

[31]

8

Generator for brain stimulation

Four months

Multispecies including the rare Cupriavidus pauculus species (an environmental Pathogen in “ water ”)

Penetration of contaminated water during participating in outdoor activities

[22]

[45]

9

Breast implant

Seven months

Pasteurella canis (a pathogen normally lives in the oropharyngeal commensal flora of cats and dogs)

Bacterial contamination from a patient-owned cat

[51]

[72]

10

Battery for brain stimulation

Two cases (Two years or 10 years)

Staphylococcus aureus

Chronic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with methotrexate

[52]

[73]

11

Tibia Tenodesis Implant

Four and half months

Nocardia nova (a common environmental pathogen, rarely affects immunocompetent hosts)

Contamination of his tibial wound by the outside facility

[53]

[74]

12

Knee arthroplasty

4 months

Listeria monocytogenes (a facultative intracellular organism; commonly associated with deli meats and unpasteurized cheeses)

Consuming unpasteurized dairy products (an immunocompromised patient)

[54]

[75]

13

Hip arthroplasty

10 years

Anaerobiospirillum succiniciproducens (lives in the gastrointestinal tract of cats and dogs)

Breeding a dog (an immunocompromised patient)

[55]

[76]

14

Knee arthroplasty

Eight years

Bartonella henselae (a pathogen that induces acute infections but is hard to be diagnosed by culture)

A cat scratch

[56]

[77]

15

Cranioplasty implant

Two years and three months

No bacteria were cultured, but the infection was clinically evident

/

[57]

[78]

16

Shoulder prosthesis

Three years

Staphylococcus spp.

/

[58]

[79]

3. Diversity of Relevant Pathogens

2.3. Diversity of Relevant Pathogens

Infections associated with medical devices with the same intended use (the same device category) but placed in different individuals are possibly connected with different bacterial strains. As shown in Table 23, the infection of breast implants can result from achromobacter xylosoxidansachromobacter xylosoxidans (Gram-negative rod) [47][68], streptococcus viridans [47]streptococcus viridans [68], and salmonella serogroup C [8]salmonella serogroup C [31], or Pasteurella canis [51]Pasteurella canis [72]. Polymicrobial infections become more prevalent in DAIs [45,59][66][80]. Even a single infection in a specific individual often has a polymicrobial composition [60][81]. Multispecies including the rare Cupriavidus pauculusCupriavidus pauculus species were isolated in an infection associated with the generator for brain stimulation [22][45]. Since the bacteria associated with an infection of a medical device may have diverse morphologies and arrangements, an effective antibacterial strategy must be capable of eliminating multiple pathogenic species. CocciCocci cells (spherical bacteria) range from 0.5 to 2.0 µm in diameter, rods are approximate 0.5–1.0 µm in width and 1–10 µm in length, and spiral bacteria are up to 20 µm in length and 0.1–1 µm in diameter [61][82]. Moreover, bacterial morphology varies with the growth environments (medium, surfaces, etc.) and growth phase (normally smallest in the logarithmic phase) [62,63][83][84]. These facts add additional difficulties to developing a competent antibacterial surface for implantable devices. On account of these features of DAIs, antibacterial surfaces only have a pore-size-based cell selectivity [64][85], or those peptide-loaded surfaces merely have specific actions to Gram-positive or Gram-negative strains [65][86] and are not likely adequate to prevent infection of implantable medical devices.

4. Prevalence of Antibiotic Resistance

2.4. Prevalence of Antibiotic Resistance

The uses of internal implants in humans are safer and more common since sterilization methods and techniques were established at the end of the 19th century [66][87], and the commercialization of antibiotics especially penicillin in the first half of the 20th century [67][88]. Antibiotics have become an integral component of contemporary biomedical practice, producing a serious follow-up threat: antibiotic resistance in bacteria [68,69][89][90]. Clinical cases in orthopedic practice have shown that infections of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusStaphylococcus aureus (MRSA), are closely related to high morbidity and mortality [70][91]. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria even multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria is now a worldwide challenge [70][91]. Antibiotic-resistant infections were frequently reported all over the world, including in both developing and developed countries (Table 34) [71-89][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110]. During an infection, Staphylococcus aureusStaphylococcus aureus (S. aureusS. aureus) often forms biofilms on implantable devices, which dramatically increases the ability of the species to acquire resistance via horizontal plasmid transfer [90][111]. This is why S. aureusS. aureus has high rates of resistance. As shown by the typical cases reported in recent years (Table 34), MRSA has become the most common strain causing infections of various implantable medical devices, including cardiac devices [72,74,78,83,85][93][95][99][103][106], orthopedic prosthetics [75,76][96][97], cochlear implants [77][98], breast implants [79][100], laryngeal implants [80][101], and stent- grafts [81][109]. In addition, there is an alarming increase in antibiotic resistance in other strains, such as Acinetobacter baumannii [71]Acinetobacter baumannii [92], Mycobacterium chelonae [73]Mycobacterium chelonae [94], Enterobacter cloacae complex [81]Enterobacter cloacae complex [102], S. epidermidis [83,89]S. epidermidis [104][110], Klebsiella pneumoniae [84]Klebsiella pneumoniae [105], Staphylococcus haemolyticus [86]Staphylococcus haemolyticus [107], and Staphylococcal endophthalmitis [108]Staphylococcal endophthalmitis [108], are also involved in various resistant DAIs. Those resistant DAIs impacted patients have to experience prolonged hospital stays, bear high medical costs, and risk increased mortality (references in Table 34). Antibiotic recalcitrance is a worldwide threat that likely causes substantial global economic costs ranging from USD 21,832 per individual case to over USD 3 trillion in gross domestic product (GDP) loss by 2050 [91][112]. In the USA alone, at least 2 million infections and 23,000 deaths per year were caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria, costing USD 55–70 billion [69][90]. Currently, antibiotic-loaded materials are important complements to modular medical practices for the prevention of recurrent infections in various medical devices, such as wound dressings, bone cement, bone plates, nails, or prostheses [92-94][24][113][114]. However, applications of these surfaces in “uninfected tissuesuninfected tissues” to prevent DAIs should be careful and in strict guidance, because the prolonged release of prophylactic antibiotics possibly contributes to arising resistant mutants [95][115]. Silver-based surfaces also have attractive efficacy in the prevention of DAIs [96][116], improper use of this material may also pose bacterial-resistant problems [97,98][117][118]. In addition, pathogenic bacteria have many defensive actions resistant to antimicrobial challenges [70,99,100][91][119][120]: (a) express polymer biofilms to protect themselves from antibiotic attacks; (b) remodel their outer surface to reduce antibiotic uptake; (c) synthesize precursors to modify the target of antimicrobials; (d) produce enzymes to detoxify dangerous drugs. Therefore, antibacterial surfaces, especially those release-killing ones, should be designed to bypass these actions of bacterial cells.

Table 34. Epidemiology of antibiotic-resistant DAIs.

Case

Case

Resistant Pathogens

Resistant Pathogens

Implant

Implant

Latent Period

Latent Period

Reference

Reference

1

Multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii

Multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii

Hip arthroplasty

12–25 days

[71

[92]

2

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

Cardiac pacemaker

Nine years

[72]

[93]

3

Clarithromycin-resistant Mycobacterium chelonae

Clarithromycin-resistant Mycobacterium chelonae

Breast implant

Four days

[73]

[94]

4

MRSA

MRSA

Transvenous lead

Four years

[74]

[95]

5

MRSA

MRSA

Ankle fracture fixation

Eight weeks

[75]

[96]

6

MRSA

MRSA

Cranial implant

Three months

[76]

[97]

7

MRSA

MRSA

Cochlear implant

Five months

[77]

[98]

8

MRSA

MRSA

Pacemaker

Two months

[78]

[99]

9

MRSA

MRSA

Breast Implant

Two days

[79]

[100]

10

MRSA

MRSA

Laryngeal implant

More than one year

[80]

[101]

11

Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii; Fluoroquinolone-resistant Enterobacter cloacae complex (AmpC overexpression)

Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii; Fluoroquinolone-resistant Enterobacter cloacae complex (AmpC overexpression)

Internal fixation for an open proximal tibial fracture

Two months

[81]

[102]

12

MRSA

MRSA

Pacemaker

Two years

[82]

[103]

13

Multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis

Multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis

Plates and wire cerclages for periprosthetic fractures

Three months

[83]

[104]

14

Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae

Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae

Lumbar instruments,

Seven days

[84]

[105]

15

MRSA

MRSA

The ventricular lead of an implanted defibrillator

Eight weeks

[85]

[106]

16

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus haemolyticus

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus haemolyticus

Hip joint

Two years

[86]

[107]

17

Ofloxacin-resistant staphylococcal endophthalmitis

Ofloxacin-resistant staphylococcal endophthalmitis

Intravitreal ozurdex implant

Three days

[87]

[108]

18

MRSA

MRSA

Stent graft

Three days

[88]

[109]

19

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis

Spinal instrumentation

7–88 days

[89]

[110]

Because

3. Innovative Designs to Mitigate Device-Associated Infections

3.1. Prolonged Antibacterial Efficacy

As shown by Table 3 and Table 4, the latent period of a DAI can be days after implant placement [92][94][105][108][109][110], years after the aforementioned clinicalsurgery [78][79][93][95], or even decades later [67][68]. This feature of DAIs, lays the basis for the development of antibacterial designssurfaces with long active durations. As shown by the representative reports on the development of “long-term” antibacterial surfaces (Table 5) [121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139], various ingredients such as commercial antibiotics (tigecycline, vancomycin, amoxicillin, etc.) [121][132], metals or metal ions (silver, copper, or zinc) [124][125][129], and other drugs [127][128] were taken to equip implantable biomaterials (titanium, silicone, ceramics, etc.) with prolonged antibacterial efficacy, ranging from days [127][131][133] to months [122][134]. Extending the release period of the antimicrobials is currently a major pathway leading to “long-term” antibacterial surfaces. Calcium phosphate cement (CPC) has proved an effective carrier to retain vancomycin (effective for implantable medical devices shall conformthe treatment of MRSA) to local sites [140][141], ensuring the antibiotic has a 24-week release profile in vivo [122]. Proper antibiotic concentration is a key factor that determines the mechanical strength of vancomycin-impregnated CPC and influences the effective antibacterial period of the composite [140]. Electrochemical oxidation, namely micro-arc oxidation (also known as plasma electrolytic oxidation) and anodic oxidation, is a well-known class of approaches that can produce porous surface layers on implant materials and, in the meantime, load antibacterial agents on the material’s surface. Shivaram et al. demonstrated that the silver loaded in an anodized titanium substrate had a release period of a minimum of 6 months [134]. The titanium substrates were fabricated with 25 vol% porosity by using a powder-based additive manufacturing technique [142]. Then electrochemical anodization was applied to the porous titanium in a hydrofluoric acid electrolyte to produce a surface layer of nanotube arrays with a thickness of 375 ± 35 nm and diameter of 105 nm ± 30 nm, which facilitated the loading of silver from a 0.1 M silver nitrate (AgNO3) solution via direct current deposition [134]. After heating at 500 °C, tightly adhered silver particles with a coverage of 13.5% were detected on the nanotube-structured surface. The 27-week cumulative release profiles demonstrated that silver release was within 10 ppm (mg/mL), which ensured good early-stage osseointegration of the porous titanium implants, along with good antibacterial activities [134]. Micro-arc oxidation is another technique that can produce a porous titanium surface which may facilitate the control of antimicrobial release. Very recently, Tsutsumi et al. reported that silver and zinc load micro-arc oxidation layer on titanium exhibited excellent activity against Escherichia coli (E. coli) after a six-month immersion in physiological saline [124]. Another way to prolong the effective period of antimicrobials is to immobilize (or embed) them in the non-degradable implant surfaces and prevent release. Cao et al. developed a silver plasma immersion ion implantation and deposition (Ag PIII&D) procedure to in situ synthesis and immobilize silver nanoparticles (Ag NPs) on titanium surface [143]. The process is generally carried out in a vacuum chamber of about 2.5 × 10−3 Pa and takes a pure silver rod (10 mm in diameter) as a cathode to produce cathodic arcs, which serve as sources of positively charged silver ions (Agn+). The silver arcs are filtered by a curved magnetic duct to remove the macro-particles produced. The energetic silver ions in a plasma form are accelerated and injected in a non-line-of-sight manner onto the titanium surfaces, which are negatively biased by a pulsed high voltage synchronizing with the cathodic arc current under a certain frequency. The positively charged silver ions become neutral atoms when they reach the titanium surfaces. As the process continues, the neutral atoms are further condensed and nanoparticles precipitate. By using this process, well-distributed Ag NPs were synthesized and immobilized on titanium.
Table 5. Representative reports on long-term antibacterial surfaces.
Active IngredientsIntended Use (Substrates)Effective PeriodReference
Tigecycline, Copper ionsTreatment for osteomyelitis (Alginate aerogel)18 days[121]
VancomycinCement (Calcium phosphate)168 days[122]
(Z-)-4-bromo-5-(bromomethylene)-2(5H)-furanoneDental implants (Titanium)60 days[123]
Silver/Zinc ionsAn orthopedic and dental implant (Titanium)180 days[124]
NanosilverBone implant (Polylactic acid fiber)11 days[125]
HonokiolRemineralization of demineralized enamel (Poly(amido amine) (PAMAM) (Dendrimer)24 days[126]
Patchouli Essential OilWound Dressing (Polyvinyl alcohol and chitosan)2 days[127]
Cetylpyridinium chlorideEndodontic sealers (Polyhydroxyethyl methacrylate trimethylolpropanetrimethacrylate)48 days[128]
Metallic silverHard tissue replacements (Titanium)84 days[129]
CopperOrthopedics (Titanium)14 days[130]
Zinc/CopperCement (dicalcium silicate)3 days[131]
AmoxicillinWound dressing (Poly (e-caprolactone))7 days[132]
ChlorhexidineMedical devices (not clear, 316L)3 days[133]
Silver ionsOrthopedic implants (Titanium)189 days (silver release)[134]
NanosilverBiomedicine (not clear)7 days[135]
Nanogold/TitaniaOrthopedic implants (Titanium)6 days[136]
NanosilverOrthopedic implants (Titanium)60 days[137]
Silver nanoparticlesOrthopedic implants (Titanium)60 days[138]
Poly (poly (ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate)Peritoneal dialysis catheters (Silicone)30 days[139]

3.2. Response to pH Shifts

It is known that the pH shift is a common phenomenon of bacterial infections [144][145][146], laying the basis for the development of pH-responsive antibacterial surfaces. The antibacterial activity of pH-responsive films or coatings can be triggered by the protonation or deprotonation of their ionic groups. The thiazole and triazole groups, for example, in polymer PS54-b-PTTBM23 (on porous polystyrene surfaces) can be protonated under acidic pH levels, which increased the positive charge density on the materials surface to act against bacterial adhesion [147]. In addition, the killed bacteria can be further removed by increasing the pH levels (pH 7.4, for instance), which induced deprotonation of the thiazole and triazole groups in the materials [147]. Normally, pH-responsive surfaces are designed for the controllable release of antibacterial agents by manipulating the materials’ pH-associated swelling or shrinking processes. By shifting the environmental pH, the protons of the carboxyl repeat units in poly(methacrylic acid) can be removed to make the material swell, which can control the release of antibacterial drugs [148]. In this manner, Wei et al. developed a pH-responsive surface capable of loading bacteriolytic lysozyme at acidic pH levels and releasing it under neutral or basic pH [148]. A pH-sensitive fibrous membrane was also developed to control the release of antibacterial gatifloxacin hydrochloride and silver nanoparticles [149]. The backbone (hydrophobic)-attached amino groups (weak basic moieties) of chitosan adapt to a specific intended usedeprotonated state above pH 6 while becoming protonated and positively charged at low pH, demonstrating a pH-dependent extension of the colloid chains and consequently swelling of the material [150]. Accordingly, chitosan was crosslinked with hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and 2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin to produce a superabsorbent hydrogel for controllable delivery of antibacterial 3,4-dihydroxy cinnamic acid in response to pH changes [150]. Similarly, the structure of keratin hydrogel was reorganized by manipulating the protonation and deprotonation process of carboxyl groups in the material, yielding pH-dependent shrinking and swelling at low and high pH levels, respectively [151]. This is crucialbehavior of the keratin hydrogel was taken to choose proper routescontrol the release of biocidal zinc oxide nanoplates in a pH-dependent manner, which can be a potential therapy response to a bacteria-contaminated media with biased pH and treatment of chronic wounds [152].
In addition, acid-labile bonds can also be used to program the release of antibacterial agents. Antibacterial gentamicin was conjugated with an alginate dialdehyde Schiff base reaction between the aldehyde groups (-CHO) and amino groups (-NH2) from the polymer, and was released due to the acidic environment triggered the disintegration of the Schiff base bonds [153]. Similarly, antimicrobial 6-Chloropurine was conjugated to 4-(vinyloxy) butyl methacrylate (VBMA) to produce 4-(1-(6-chloro-7H-purin-7-yl) ethoxy) butyl methacrylate (CPBMA), which contained a hemiaminal ether linkage can be hydrolyzed in mildly acidic conditions and allowed the controllable release of the antibacterial agent [154]. Moreover, pH-induced material structural evolutions, such as degradation, disintegration, and conformational changes, are also applied for material synthesisthe controllable delivery of biocides. Polyacetal-based polymers are degradable under acidic pH levels and possess a relatively low critical solution temperature (LCST) which allows wettability control by shifting the temperature (between LCST and room temperature) [155]. On account of this, applicable parameters for material characterizationsa film-forming triple polymer-gel matrix containing polyacetal-based polymer was prepared by De Silva et al. to control the topical release of silver sulfadiazine, which was highly efficient against wound pathogens, such as S. aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa), and Candida albicans (C. Albicans) [155]. The Schiff base structure between the amino groups (-NH2) in dopamine and the right strategiesaldehyde groups (-CHO) in oxidized dextran can be formed at pH 7.0 under the protection of nitrogen (N2) [156]. The Schiff base bonds were disintegrated due to exposure to acidic bacteria-infected diabetic wounds, which was the mechanism used by Hu et al. to control the release of antibacterial silver nanoparticles by dopamine-conjugated oxidized dextran polymers [156]. The pH-induced conformational changes in silk fibroin (in a nanocapsule structure) were also applied to control the delivery of eugenol, which exhibited strong efficacy against both Gram-positive S. aureus and Gram-negative E. coli [157].

3.3. Response to Bacterial Charging

Membrane-bound respiratory electron transfer in bacteria plays a critical role in the synthesis of adenosine triphosphate and bacterial maintenance [158]; therefore, it can be a potential target for biological evaluations, enabling reproducible, comparable, and reusable results that will be consistent in clinical translation[1,96,101]antibacterial surfaces.

References：

  1. Cao, H.; Qiao, S.; Qin, H.; Jandt, KD. Antibacterial Designs for Implantable Medical Devices: Evolutions and Challenges. Funct. Biomater. 2022, 13, 86.
  2. Takakura, Y.; Tanaka, Y.; Kumai, T.; Sugimoto, K.; Ohgushi, H. Ankle arthroplasty using three generations of metal and ceramic prostheses. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2004, 424, 130-136.
  3. El-Sayed, D.; Nouvong, A. Infection protocols for implants. Podiat.r Med. Surg. 2019, 36, 627–649.
  4. Merola, M.; Affatato, S. Materials for hip prostheses: A review of wear and loading considerations. Materials 2019, 12, 495.
  5. Henderson, R.A.; Austin, M.S. Management of periprosthetic joint infection: The more we learn, the less we know. Arthroplast. 2017, 32, 2056–2059.
  6. Mihalko, W.M.; Haider, H.; Kurtz, S.; Marcolongo, M.; Urish, K. New materials for hip and knee joint replacement: what’s hip and what’s in kneed? Orthop. Res. 2020, 38, 1436–1444.
  7. Perry, D.; Frame, J.D. The history and development of breast implants. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2020, 10, 478–482.
  8. Hall, B.R.; Billue, K.L.; Sanders, S.E.; Meyer, B.R.; Johnson, P.J. Salmonella infection of breast implant associated with traveler’s diarrhea: A case report. JPRAS Open 2018, 18, 59–64.
  9. Franchelli, S.; Pesce, M.; Savaia, S.; Marchese, A.; Barbieri, R.; Baldelli, I.; De Maria, A. Clinical and microbiological characterization of late breast implant infections after reconstructive breast cancer surgery. Infect. 2015, 16, 636–644.
  10. Chakfé, N.; Diener, H.; Lejay, A.; Assadian, O.; Berard, X.; Caillon, J.; Fourneau, I.; Glaudemans, A.W.J.M.; Koncar, I.; Lindholt, J.; et al. Editor’s Choice—European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2020 Clinical practice guidelines on the management of vascular graft and endograft infections. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2020, 59, 339–384.
  11. Viola, G.M.; Darouiche, R.O. Cardiovascular implantable device infections. Infect. Dis. Rep. 2011, 13, 333–342.
  12. Zheng, Q.; Tang, Q.; Wang, Z.L.; Li, Z. Self-powered cardiovascular electronic devices and systems. Rev. Cardiol. 2021, 18, 7–21.
  13. Zerbo, S.; Perrone, G.; Bilotta, C.; Adelfio, V.; Malta, G.; Di Pasquale, P.; Maresi, E.; Argo, A. Cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection and new insights about correlation between pro-inflammatory markers and heart failure: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021, 8, 602275.
  14. Tarakji, K.G.; Chan, E.J.; Cantillon, D.J.; Doonan, A.L.; Hu, T.; Schmitt, S.; Fraser, T.G.; Kim, A.; Gordon, S.M.; Wilkoff, B.L. Cardiac implantable electronic device infections: Presentation, management, and patient outcomes. Heart Rhythm. 2010, 7, 1043–1047.
  15. Korkerdsup, T.; Ngarmukos, T.; Sungkanuparph, S.; Phuphuakrat, A. Cardiac implantable electronic device infection in the cardiac referral center in Thailand: Incidence, microbiology, risk factors, and outcomes. Arrhythm. 2018, 34, 632–639.
  16. Stöver, T.; Lenarz, T. Biomaterials in cochlear implants. GMS Curr. Top. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2009, 8, Doc10.
  17. Lodhi, F.; Coelho, D.H. Non-tuberculous mycobacterial cochlear implant infection: An emerging pathogen. Cochlear Implant. Int. 2015, 16, 237–240.
  18. Sharma, S.; Gupta, A.; Bhatia, K.; Lahiri, A.K.; Singh, S. Salvaging cochlear implant after wound infection: Well worth a try. Cochlear Implant. Int. 2017, 18, 230–234.
  19. Tawfik, K.O.; Golub, J.S.; Roland, J.T.; Samy, R.N. Recurrent cochlear implant infection treated with exteriorization and partial mastoid obliteration. Cochlear Implant. Int. 2016, 17, 58–61.
  20. Vaid, N.; Vaid, S.; Manikoth, M. Case report-Biofilm infection of a cochlear implant. Cochlear Implant. Int. 2013, 14, 117–120.
  21. Zarrintaj, P.; Saeb, M.R.; Ramakrishna, S.; Mozafari, M. Biomaterials selection for neuroprosthetics. Opin. Biomed. Eng. 2018, 6, 99–109.
  22. Shenai, M.B.; Falconer, R.; Rogers, S. A cupriavidus pauculus infection in a patient with a deep brain stimulation implant. Cureus 2019, 11, e6104.
  23. Wei, Z.; Gordon, C.R.; Bergey, G.K.; Sacks, J.M.; Anderson, W.S. Implant site infection and bone flap osteomyelitis associated with the neuropace responsive neurostimulation system. World Neurosurg. 2016, 88, 687.e1–e6.
  24. Lawrence, E.L.; Turner, I.G. Materials for urinary catheters: A review of their history and development in the UK. Eng. Phys. 2005, 27, 443–453.
  25. Huang, W.C.; Wann, S.R.; Lin, S.L.; Kunin, C.M.; Kung, M.H.; Lin, C.H.; Hsu, C.W.; Liu, C.P.; Lee, S.S.; Liu, Y.C.; et al. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections in intensive care units can be reduced by prompting physicians to remove unnecessary catheters. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2004, 25, 974–978.
  26. Lo, E.; Nicolle, L.E.; Coffin, S.E.; Gould, C.; Maragakis, L.L.; Meddings, J.; Pegues, D.A.; Pettis, A.M.; Saint, S.; Yokoe, D.S. Strategies to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2014, 35, 464–479.
  27. Luzum, M.; Sebolt, J.; Chopra, V. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection, clostridioides difficile colitis, central line-associated bloodstream infection, and methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus. Clin. North Am. 2020, 104, 663–679.
  28. Li, F.; Song, M.; Xu, L.; Deng, B.; Zhu, S.; Li, X. Risk factors for catheter-associated urinary tract infection among hospitalized patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Adv. Nurs. 2019, 75, 517–527.
  29. Shuman, E.K.; Chenoweth, C.E. Urinary catheter-associated infections. Dis. Clin. North Am. 2018, 32, 885–897.
  30. Bigio, M.R. Del. Biological reactions to cerebrospinal fluid shunt devices: A review of the cellular pathology. Neurosurgery 1998, 42, 319–326.
  31. Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program. Device-associated infections in Canadian acute-care hospitals from 2009 to 2018. Commun. Dis. Rep. 2020, 46, 387–397.
  32. Shibamura-Fujiogi, M.; Ormsby, J.; Breibart, M.; Warf, B.; Priebe, G.P.; Soriano, S.G.; Sandora, T.J.; Yuki, K. Risk factors for pediatric surgical site infection following neurosurgical procedures for hydrocephalus: A retrospective single-center cohort study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2021, 21, 124.
  33. Benachinmardi, K.K.; Ravikumar, R.; Indiradevi, B. Role of biofilm in cerebrospinal fluid shunt infections: A study at tertiary neurocare center from South India. Neurosci. Rural. Pract. 2017, 8, 335–341.
  34. Fernández-Méndez, R.; Richards, H.K.; Seeley, H.M.; Pickard, J.D.; Joannides, A.J. UKSR collaborators, Current epidemiology of cerebrospinal fluid shunt surgery in the UK and Ireland (2004–2013). Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2019, 90, 747–754.
  35. Deshmukh, R.M.; Kulkarni, S.S. A review on biomaterials in orthopedic bone plate application. International J. Curr. Eng. Technol. 2015, 5, 2587–2591.
  36. Toro-Aguilera, Á.; Zuriarrain, S.W.; Masdeu, M.G.; Sayol, R.R.; Billi, A.M.; Carrera, I.; Caso, J. de. Risk factors for infection in fixation of distal tibia fractures. Injury 2021, 52 (Suppl 4), S104–S108.
  37. Guillaume, B. Dental implants: A review. Morphologie 2016, 100, 189–198.
  38. Neely, A.L.; Maalhagh-Fard, A. Successful management of early peri-implant infection and bone loss using a multidisciplinary treatment approach. Adv. Periodontics 2018, 8, 5–10.
  39. Arciola, C.R.; Campoccia, D.; Montanaro, L. Implant infections: Adhesion, biofilm formation and immune evasion. Rev. Microbiol. 2018, 16, 397-409.
  40. Patton, D.; Kiewiet, N.; Brage, M. Infected total ankle arthroplasty: Risk factors and treatment options. Foot Ankle Int. 2015, 36, 626–634.
  41. Gbejuade, H.O.; Lovering, A.M.; Webb, J.C. The role of microbial biofilms in prosthetic joint infections. Acta Orthop. 2015, 86, 147–158.
  42. Chang, C.H.; Lee, S.H.; Lin, Y.C.; Wang, Y.C.; Chang, C.J.; Hsieh, P.H. Increased periprosthetic hip and knee infection projected from 2014 to 2035 in Taiwan. Infect. Public Health 2020, 13, 1768-1773.
  43. Bayston, R.; Lari, J. A study of the sources of infection in colonised shunts. Med. Child Neurol.1974, 16, 16–22.
  44. Reynolds-Campbell, G.; Nicholson, A.; Thoms-Rodriguez, C.A. Oral bacterial infections: Diagnosis and management. Clin. N. Am. 2017, 61, 305–318.
  45. Masters, E.A.; Ricciardi, B.F.; de Mesy Bentley, K.L.; Moriarty, T.F.; Schwarz, E.M.; Muthukrishnan, G. Skeletal infections: Microbial pathogenesis, immunity and clinical management. Rev. Microbiol. 2022, 20, 385–400 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00686-0.
  46. Bain, C.J.; Odili, J. Late infection of an alloplastic chin implant masquerading as squamous cell carcinoma. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2012, 65, e151–e152.
  47. Chang, J.; Lee, G.W. Late hematogenous bacterial infections of breast implants: Two case reports of unique bacterial infections. Plast. Surg. 2011, 67, 14–16.
  48. Beidas, O.E.; Rabb, C.H.; Sawan, K.T.; Tan, B.K. The pseudomeningocoele that wasn’t: Case report of an adult who presented with a late infection of an implant. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2011, 64, 1228–1231.
  49. Vichitvejpaisal, P.; Dalvin, L.A.; Lally, S.E.; Shields, C.L. Delayed implant infection with Cutibacterium acnes (Propionibacterium acnes) 30 years after silicone sheet orbital floor implant. Orbit 2020, 39, 139–142.
  50. Coden, D.J.; Hornblass, A. Propionibacterium acnes orbital abscess. Ophthalmol. 1990, 108, 481.
  51. Hannouille, J.; Belgrado, J.P.; Vankerchove, S.; Vandermeeren, L. Breast implant infection with pasteurella canis: First case-report. JPRAS Open 2019, 21, 86–88.
  52. Oses, M.; Ordás, C.M.; Feliz, C.; Del Val, J.; Ayerbe, J.; García-Ruiz, P.J. Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs as a risk factor for delayed DBS implant infection. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 2018, 55, 143–144.
  53. Young, P.; Riga, A.; Brunelli, J. Nocardia nova infection of tibia tenodesis implant after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in an immunocompetent patient. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. Glob. Res. Rev. 2020, 4, e19.00167.
  54. Paziuk, T.; Levicoff, E.; Tan, T.; Good, R. Periprosthetic joint infection with listeria monocytogenes: A case report. JBJS Case Connect 2020, 10, e1900489.
  55. Madden, G.R.; Poulter, M.D.; Crawford, M.P.; Wilson, D.S.; Donowitz, G.R. Case report: Anaerobiospirillum prosthetic joint infection in a heart transplant recipient. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2019, 20, 301.
  56. Haimes, M.A.; Nelms, N J. Total knee bartonella henselae infection: An unusual manifestation of cat scratch disease: A case report. JBJS Case Connect 2019, 9, e0081.
  57. Posti, J.P.; Piitulainen, J.M.; Hupa, L.; Fagerlund, S.; Frantzén, J.; Aitasalo, K.M.J.; Vuorinen, V.; Serlo, W.; Syrjänen, S.; Vallittu, P.K. A glass fiber-reinforced composite—bioactive glass cranioplasty implant: A case study of an early development stage implant removed due to a late infection. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2016, 55, 191–200.
  58. Wahl, P.; Sprecher, C.M.; Brüning, C.; Meier, C.; Milz, S.; Gautier, E.; Moriarty, T F. Successful bony integration of a porous tantalum implant despite longlasting and ongoing infection: Histologic workup of an explanted shoulder prosthesis. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2018, 106, 2924–2931.
  59. Hurdle, J.G.; O’Neill, A.J.; Chopra, I.; Lee, R.E. Targeting bacterial membrane function: An underexploited mechanism for treating persistent infections. Rev. Microbiol. 2011, 9, 62–75.
  60. Dowd, S.E.; Sun, Y.; Secor, P.R.; Rhoads, D.D.; Wolcott, B.M.; James, G.A.; Wolcott, R.D. Survey of bacterial diversity in chronic wounds using pyrosequencing, DGGE, and full ribosome shotgun sequencing. BMC Microbiol. 2008, 8, 43.
  61. Ryan, K.J.; Ahmad, N.; Alspaugh, J.A.; Drew, W.L. Sherris Medical Microbiology, 7th ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 381–
  62. Männik, J.; Driessen, R.; Galajda, P.; Keymer, J.E.; Dekker, C. Bacterial growth and motility in sub-micron constrictions. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 14861–14866.
  63. Pianetti, A.; Battistelli, M.; Citterio, B.; Parlani, C.; Falcieri, E.; Bruscolini, F. Morphological changes of Aeromonas hydrophila in response to osmotic stress. Micron 2009, 40, 426–433.
  64. Vargas-Alfredo, N.; Santos-Coquillat, A.; Martínez-Campos, E.; Dorronsoro, A.; Cortajarena, A.L.; Del Campo, A.; Rodríguez-Hernández, J. Highly efficient antibacterial surfaces based on bacterial/cell size selective microporous supports. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 44270–44280.
  65. Costa, F.; Carvalho, I.F.; Montelaro, R.C.; Gomes, P.; Cristina, M.; Martins, L. Covalent immobilization of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) onto biomaterial surfaces. Acta Biomater. 2011, 7, 1431–1440.
  66. Lister, J. On a new method of treating compound fracture, abscess, etc.: With observations on the conditions of suppuration. Lancet 1867, 89, 326–329.
  67. Durand, G.A.; Raoult, D.; Dubourg, G. Antibiotic discovery: History, methods and perspectives. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2019, 53, 371–382.
  68. Bryson, D.J.; Morris, D.L.J.; Shivji, F.S.; Rollins, K.R.; Snape, S.; Ollivere, B.J. Antibiotic prophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery: Difficult decisions in an era of evolving antibiotic resistance. Bone Joint J. 2016, 98, 1014–
  69. Li, B.; Webster, T.J. Bacteria antibiotic resistance: New challenges and opportunities for implant-associated orthopedic infections. Orthop. Res. 2018, 36, 22–32.
  70. Makabenta, J.M.V.; Nabawy, A.; Li, C.H.; Schmidt-Malan, S.; Patel, R.; Rotello, V.M. Nanomaterial-based therapeutics for antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Rev. Microbiol. 2021, 19, 23–36.
  71. Vasiliadis, A.V.; Poutoglidou, F.; Chatziravdeli, V.; Metaxiotis, D.; Beletsiotis, A. Acute periprosthetic hip joint infection caused by multidrug-resistant acinetobacter baumannii: Is debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and implant retention a viable treatment option? Cureus 2021, 13, e13090.
  72. Okada, A.; Shoda, M.; Tabata, H.; Kobayashi, H.; Shoin, W.; Okano, T.; Yoshie, K.; Kato, K.; Motoki, H.; Kuwahara, K. Simultaneous infection of abandoned leads and newly implanted leadless cardiac pacemaker: Why did this occur? Cardiol. Cases 2020, 23, 35–37.
  73. Jhaveri, V.V.; Singhal, D.; Riedel, S.; Rowley, C.F.; Nathavitharana, R.R. Surgical cure of clarithromycin resistant Mycobacterium chelonae breast implant infection: A case report and review of the literature. Clin. Tuberc. Other Mycobact. Dis. 2020, 21, 100183.
  74. El-Zein, R.S.; Stelzer, M.; Hatanelas, J.; Goodlive, T.W.; Amin, A.K. A ghost left behind after transvenous lead extraction: A finding to be feared. J. Case Rep. 2020, 21, e924243.
  75. Palacios, L.; de Nova, A.A.; Pardo, M G. Conservative multimodal management of osteosynthesis material in surgical wounds with polymicrobial superinfection, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Clinical case. Española Cirugía Ortopédica Traumatol. (Engl. Ed.) 2020, 64, 125–129.
  76. Hwang, S. Oh; Chang, L.S. Salvage of an exposed cranial prosthetic implant using a transposition flap with an indwelling antibiotic irrigation system. Craniofac. Surg. 2020, 21, 73–76.
  77. Fukushima, S.; Komune, N.; Kamizono, K.; Matsumoto, N.; Takaiwa, K.; Nakagawa, T.; Kadota, H. Use of negative pressure wound therapy to treat a cochlear implant infection around the auricle: A case report. Wound Care 2020, 29, 568–571.
  78. Bajaj, T.; Karapetians, A.; Karapetians, N.; Duong, H.; Heidari, A. Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis presenting as neutrophilic meningoencephalitis. AME Case Rep. 2020, 4, 4.
  79. Hisanaga, K.; Kadota, H.; Fukushima, S.; Inatomi, Y.; Shimamoto, R.; Kamizono, K.; Hanada, M.; Yoshida, S. Toxic shock syndrome caused by staphylococcal infection after breast implant surgery: A case report and literature review. Plast. Surg. 2019, 83, 359–362.
  80. Meleca, J.B.; Bryson, P.C. Delayed laryngeal implant infection and laryngocutaneous fistula after medialization laryngoplasty. J. Otolaryngol. 2019, 40, 462–464.
  81. Siebenbürger, G.; Grabein, B.; Schenck, T.; Kammerlander, C.; Böcker, W.; Zeckey, C. Eradication of acinetobacter baumannii/enterobacter cloacae complex in an open proximal tibial fracture and closed drop foot correction with a multidisciplinary approach using the taylor spatial frame®: A case report. J. Med. Res. 2019, 24, 2.
  82. Nozoe, M.; Yoshida, D.; Nagatomo, D.; Suematsu, N.; Kubota, T.; Okabe, M.; Yamamoto, Y. Successful percutaneous retrieval of a micra transcatheter pacing system at 8 weeks after implantation. Arrhythm. 2018, 34, 653–655.
  83. Bonacker, J.; Darowski, M.; Haar, P.; Westphal, T.; Bergschmidt, P. Periprosthetic tibial fracture with nonunion and ascending prosthetic joint infection: A case report of an individual treatment strategy. Orthop. Case Rep. 2018, 8, 3–8.
  84. Rico-Nieto, A.; Moreno-Ramos, F.; Fernández-Baillo, N. Lumbar arthrodesis infection by multi-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae, successfully treated with implant retention and ceftazidime/avibactam. Española Cirugía Ortopédica Traumatol. (Engl. Ed.) 2018, 62, 471–473.
  85. Vaidya, G.N.; Deam, A.G. Simultaneous suction debulking of lead vegetation prior to percutaneous lead extraction. Cardiol. Cases. 2018, 18, 17–19.
  86. Sebastian, S.; Malhotra, R.; Pande, A.; Gautam, D.; Xess, I.; Dhawan, B. Staged reimplantation of a total hip prosthesis after co-infection with candida tropicalis and staphylococcus haemolyticus: A case report. Mycopathologia 2018, 183, 579–584.
  87. Mahalingam, P.; Topiwalla, T.T.; Ganesan, G. Drug-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococcal endophthalmitis following dexamethasone intravitreal implant. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2017, 65, 634–636.
  88. Gharacholou, S.M.; Dworak, M.; Dababneh, A.S.; Palraj, R.V.; Roskos, M.C.; Chapman, S.C. Acute infection of viabahn stent graft in the popliteal artery. Vasc. Surg. Cases Innov. Tech. 2017, 3, 69–73.
  89. Takizawa, T.; Tsutsumimoto, T.; Yui, M.; Misawa, H. Surgical site infections caused by methicillin-resistant staphylococcus epidermidis after spinal instrumentation surgery. Spine 2017, 42, 525–530.
  90. Savage, V.J.; Chopra, I.; O’Neill, A.J. Staphylococcus aureus biofilms promote horizontal transfer of antibiotic resistance. Agents Chemother. 2013, 57, 1968–1970.
  1. Naylor, N.R.; Atun, R.; Zhu, N.; Kulasabanathan, K.; Silva, S.; Chatterjee, A.; Knight, G.M.; Robotham, J.V. Estimating the burden of antimicrobial resistance: A systematic literature review. Resist. Infect. Control 2018, 7, 58.
  2. Metsemakers, W.J.; Reul, M.; Nijs, S. The use of gentamicin-coated nails in complex open tibia fracture and revision cases: A retrospective analysis of a single centre case series and review of the literature. Injury 2015, 46, 2433–2437.
  3. Zilberman, M.; Elsner, J.J. Antibiotic-eluting medical devices for various applications. Control Release 2008, 130, 202–215.
  4. Freischmidt, H.; Armbruster, J.; Reiter, G.; Grützner, P.A.; Helbig, L.; Guehring, T. Individualized techniques of implant coating with an antibiotic-loaded, hydroxyapatite/calcium sulphate bone graft substitute. Clin. Risk Manag. 2020, 16, 689–694.
  5. Campoccia, D.; Montanaro, L.; Speziale, P.; Arciola, C.R. Antibiotic-loaded biomaterials and the risks for the spread of antibiotic resistance following their prophylactic and therapeutic clinical use. Biomaterials 2010, 31, 6363–6377.
  6. Cao, H.; Qin, H.; Li, Y.; Jandt, K.D. The action-networks of nanosilver: Bridging the gap between material and biology. Healthc. Mater. 2021, 26, e2100619.
  7. Percival, S.L.; Bowler, P.G.; Russell, D. Bacterial resistance to silver in wound care. Hosp. Infect. 2005, 60, 1–7.
  8. Panáček, A.; Kvítek, L.; Smékalová, M.; Večeřová, R.; Kolář, M.; Röderová, M.; Dyčka, F.; Šebela, M.; Prucek, R.; Tomanec, O.; et al. Bacterial resistance to silver nanoparticles and how to overcome it. Nanotechnol. 2018, 13, 65–71.
  9. Nadeem, S.F.; Gohar, U.F.; Tahir, S.F.; Mukhtar, H.; Pornpukdeewattana, S.; Nukthamna, P.; Moula Ali, A.M.; Bavisetty, S.C.B.; Massa, S. Antimicrobial resistance: More than 70 years of war between humans and bacteria. Rev. Microbiol. 2020, 46, 578–599.
  10. Ciofu, O.; Moser, C.; Jensen, P.Ø.; Høiby, N. Tolerance and resistance of microbial biofilms. Rev. Microbiol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00682-4.
  11. Cao, H.; Dauben, T.J.; Helbing, C.; Jia, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, M.; Müller, L.; Gu, S.; Zhang, X.; Qin, H.; et al. The antimicrobial effect of calcium-doped titanium is activated by fibrinogen adsorption. Horiz. 2022, 9,1962-1968.

Please Note: This entry Extracellular electron transfer is a partgeneral mechanism required for bacterial growth [159][160][161][162]. The microbial cell envelope is not electrically conductive; hence bacteria have evolved strategies to exchange electrons with extracellular substances [163], including direct electron transfer via physical contacts (through the bacterial envelope or pili) between a microbe and a material surface, and redox-active compounds mediating electron shuttle between bacteria and the material’s surface serve as electron acceptors [164].

Accordingly, Cao et al. proposed to construct antibacterial coatings targeting the extracellular electron transfer process in pathogenic bacteria [165][166]. Ag NPs in various sizes (4–25 nm) were in situ synthesized and immobilized onto plasma-spraying-prepared titanium oxide coatings by manipulating the atomic-scale heating effect in silver plasma immersion ion implantation. The antibacterial efficacy of the resulting composite coatings was dependent on the particle size and interparticle space of the immobilized silver, i.e., large particles (5–25 nm) induced fatal cytosolic content leakage and lysis of both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria while small ones (~4 nm) did not [165]; and a relatively large interparticle space was superior to a small interparticle space is disrupting the integrity of the adherent bacterial cells [166]. Similar results were also reported in follow-up studies by using silver nanoparticles decorated with tantalum oxide coatings [167][168]. By using plasma spraying, graphene nanomaterials decorated with titania coatings were prepared for antibacterial applications [169]. The coatings can collect the electrons extruded by adherent bacterial cells due to the rectification of the Schottky-like graphene-titania boundaries [169]. In vitro evidence showed that cobalt-titanium dioxide and cobalt oxide (CoO or Co3O4)-titanium dioxide nanoscale heterojunctions can downregulate the expression of respiratory gene levels in bacteria and cause oxidative damage to bacterial surfaces [170]. In another study, Wang et al. also found that the antibacterial efficacy of tungsten-incorporated titanium dioxide coatings (prepared by micro-arc oxidization) was related to their strong capability in the storage of bacteria-extruded electrons and accumulation of sufficient valence-band holes inducing oxidative damages to the microbes [171]. These findings have opened up new avenues for taking advantage of the intrinsic feature of biological systems to design and control the antibacterial actions of biomaterials.

3.4. Response to Light Irradiation

Sterilizing materials’ surfaces with ultraviolet (UV) light is a well-established standard method that has been around for decades. Materials converting light energy to heat for local disruption of bacterial colonization, i.e., photothermal therapy, are promising alternatives to antibiotics that possibly circumvent the problem of resistance [172]. Gold nanoparticles have been studied widely because of their high efficiency of photothermal conversion via surface plasmon resonance in the near-infrared (NIR) region (in the range of 700–1100 nm) [173]. It was reported that a gold nanoparticle and phase-transitioned lysozyme hybrid film was able to kill 99% of adherent bacteria within 5 min under the illumination of a recent paper writtenNIR laser [173]. Composite thin films were produced by Huiliang Cao et alcoordinative assembly of tannic acid (TA) and iron ions (Fe3+) and yielded Au-TA/Fe [174]. JThese films exhibited high absorption and efficient light-to-heat convention under NIR irradiation, as a result, they had efficient photothermal killing effects that disrupted 99% of adherent microbes, including both Gram-negative E. Functcoli and Gram-positive MRSA strains. Biomater. 2022, 13(3), 86; https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb13030086

References

  1. Arciola, C.R.; Campoccia, D.; Montanaro, L. Implant infections: Adhesion, biofilm formation and immune evasion. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2018, 16, 397–409.
  2. Andersen, O.Z.; Offermanns, V.; Sillassen, M.; Almtoft, K.P.; Andersen, I.H.; Sørensen, S.; Jeppesen, C.S.; Kraft, D.C.E.; Bøttiger, J.; Rasse, M.; et al. Accelerated bone ingrowth by local delivery of strontium from surface functionalized titanium implants. Biomaterials 2013, 34, 5883–5890.
  3. Mond, H.G.; Proclemer, A. The 11th world survey of cardiac pacing and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Calendar year 2009-a World Society of Arrhythmia’s project. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2011, 34, 1013–1027.
  4. Saint, S.; Wiese, J.; Amory, J.K.; Bernstein, M.L.; Patel, U.D.; Zemencuk, J.K.; Bernstein, S.J.; Lipsky, B.A.; Hofer, T.P. Are physicians aware of which of their patients have indwelling urinary catheters. Am. J. Med. 2000, 109, 476–480.
  5. Sloan, M.; Premkumar, A.; Sheth, N.P. Projected volume of primary total joint arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2018, 100, 1455–1460.
  6. Rupp, M.; Lau, E.; Kurtz, S.M.; Alt, V. Projections of primary TKA and THA in Germany from 2016 through 2040. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2020, 478, 1622–1633.
  7. Matharu, G.S.; Culliford, D.J.; Blom, A.W.; Judge, A. Projections for primary hip and knee replacement surgery up to the year 2060: An analysis based on data from the national joint registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2021, 104, 443–448.
  8. Magill, S.S.; Edwards, J.R.; Bamberg, W.; Beldavs, Z.G.; Dumyati, G.; Kainer, M.A.; Lynfield, R.; Maloney, M.; McAllister-Hollod, L.; Nadle, J.; et al. Emerging infections program healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use prevalence survey team. multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 370, 1198–1208.
  9. Dadi, N.C.T.; Radochová, B.; Vargová, J.; Bujdáková, H. Impact of healthcare-associated infections connected to medical devices-an update. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2332.
  10. Chang, C.H.; Lee, S.H.; Lin, Y.C.; Wang, Y.C.; Chang, C.J.; Hsieh, P.H. Increased periprosthetic hip and knee infection projected from 2014 to 2035 in Taiwan. J. Infect. Public Health 2020, 13, 1768–1773.
  11. Premkumar, A.; Kolin, D.A.; Farley, K.X.; Wilson, J.M.; McLawhorn, A.S.; Cross, M.B.; Sculco, P.K. Projected economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection of the hip and knee in the United States. J. Arthroplast. 2021, 36, 1484–1489.
  12. Zhang, S.; Yu, Y.; Wang, H.; Ren, L.; Yang, K. Study on mechanical behavior of Cu-bearing antibacterial titanium alloy implant. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2022, 125, 104926.
  13. Chen, T.; Wang, Y.; Xie, J.; Qu, X.; Liu, C. Lysozyme amyloid fibril-integrated PEG injectable hydrogel adhesive with improved antiswelling and antibacterial capabilities. Biomacromolecules 2022, 23, 1376–1391.
  14. Yuan, Z.; Wu, J.; Fu, Z.; Meng, S.; Dai, L.; Cai, K. Polydopamine-Mediated Interfacial Functionalization of Implants for Accelerating Infected Bone Repair through Light-Activatable Antibiosis and Carbon Monoxide Gas Regulated Macrophage Polarization. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022, 2200374.
  15. Mou, X.; Zhang, H.; Qiu, H.; Zhang, W.; Wang, Y.; Xiong, K.; Huang, N.; Santos, H.A.; Yang, Z. Mussel-inspired and bioclickable peptide engineered surface to combat thrombosis and infection. Research 2022, 2022, 9780879.
  16. Cao, H.; Dauben, T.J.; Helbing, C.; Jia, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, M.; Müller, L.; Gu, S.; Zhang, X.; Qin, H.; et al. The antimicrobial effect of calcium-doped titanium is activated by fibrinogen adsorption. Mater. Horiz. 2022.
  17. Ye, J.; Li, B.; Li, M.; Zheng, Y.; Wu, S.; Han, Y. Formation of a ZnO nanorods-patterned coating with strong bactericidal capability and quantitative evaluation of the contribution of nanorods-derived puncture and ROS-derived killing. Bioact Mater 2022, 11, 181–191.
  18. Zhang, G.; Wu, Z.; Yang, Y.; Shi, J.; Lv, J.; Fang, Y.; Shen, Z.; Lv, Z.; Li, P.; Yao, X.; et al. A multifunctional antibacterial coating on bone implants for osteosarcoma therapy and enhanced osteointegration. A multifunctional antibacterial coating on bone implants for osteosarcoma therapy and enhanced osteointegration. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 428, 131155.
  19. Yang, L.; Wang, C.; Li, L.; Zhu, F.; Ren, X.; Huang, Q.; Cheng, Y.; Li, Y. Bioinspired integration of naturally occurring molecules towards universal and smart antibacterial coatings. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022, 32, 2108749.
  20. Li, W.; Hua, G.; Cai, J.; Zhou, Y.; Zhou, X.; Wang, M.; Wang, X.; Fu, B.; Ren, L. Multi-stimulus responsive multilayer coating for treatment of device-associated infections. J. Funct. Biomater. 2022, 13, 24.
  21. Shiue, S.; Syu, F.; Lin, H. Two types of bacteriophage-modified alginate hydrogels as antibacterial coatings for implants. Two types of bacteriophage-modified alginate hydrogels as antibacterial coatings for implants. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2022, 134, 104353.
  22. Tredget, E.E.; Shankowsky, H.A.; Groenveld, A.; Burrell, R. A matched-pair, randomized study evaluating the efficacy and safety of Acticoat silver-coated dressing for the treatment of burn wounds. J. Burn Care Rehabil. 1998, 19, 531–537.
  23. Fiore, M.; Sambri, A.; Zucchini, R.; Giannini, C.; Donati, D.M.; De Paolis, M. Silver-coated megaprosthesis in prevention and treatment of peri-prosthetic infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis about efficacy and toxicity in primary and revision surgery. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2021, 31, 201–220.
  24. Metsemakers, W.J.; Reul, M.; Nijs, S. The use of gentamicin-coated nails in complex open tibia fracture and revision cases: A retrospective analysis of a single centre case series and review of the literature. Injury 2015, 46, 2433–2437.
  25. Takakura, Y.; Tanaka, Y.; Kumai, T.; Sugimoto, K.; Ohgushi, H. Ankle arthroplasty using three generations of metal and ceramic prostheses. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2004, 424, 130–136.
  26. El-Sayed, D.; Nouvong, A. Infection protocols for implants. Clin. Podiat.r Med. Surg. 2019, 36, 627–649.
  27. Merola, M.; Affatato, S. Materials for hip prostheses: A review of wear and loading considerations. Materials 2019, 12, 495.
  28. Henderson, R.A.; Austin, M.S. Management of periprosthetic joint infection: The more we learn, the less we know. J. Arthroplast. 2017, 32, 2056–2059.
  29. Mihalko, W.M.; Haider, H.; Kurtz, S.; Marcolongo, M.; Urish, K. New materials for hip and knee joint replacement: What’s hip and what’s in kneed? J. Orthop. Res. 2020, 38, 1436–1444.
  30. Perry, D.; Frame, J.D. The history and development of breast implants. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2020, 10, 478–482.
  31. Hall, B.R.; Billue, K.L.; Sanders, S.E.; Meyer, B.R.; Johnson, P.J. Salmonella infection of breast implant associated with traveler’s diarrhea: A case report. JPRAS Open 2018, 18, 59–64.
  32. Franchelli, S.; Pesce, M.; Savaia, S.; Marchese, A.; Barbieri, R.; Baldelli, I.; De Maria, A. Clinical and microbiological characterization of late breast implant infections after reconstructive breast cancer surgery. Surg. Infect. 2015, 16, 636–644.
  33. Chakfé, N.; Diener, H.; Lejay, A.; Assadian, O.; Berard, X.; Caillon, J.; Fourneau, I.; Glaudemans, A.W.J.M.; Koncar, I.; Lindholt, J.; et al. Editor’s Choice—European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2020 Clinical practice guidelines on the management of vascular graft and endograft infections. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2020, 59, 339–384.
  34. Viola, G.M.; Darouiche, R.O. Cardiovascular implantable device infections. Curr. Infect. Dis. Rep. 2011, 13, 333–342.
  35. Zheng, Q.; Tang, Q.; Wang, Z.L.; Li, Z. Self-powered cardiovascular electronic devices and systems. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 2021, 18, 7–21.
  36. Zerbo, S.; Perrone, G.; Bilotta, C.; Adelfio, V.; Malta, G.; Di Pasquale, P.; Maresi, E.; Argo, A. Cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection and new insights about correlation between pro-inflammatory markers and heart failure: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021, 8, 602275.
  37. Tarakji, K.G.; Chan, E.J.; Cantillon, D.J.; Doonan, A.L.; Hu, T.; Schmitt, S.; Fraser, T.G.; Kim, A.; Gordon, S.M.; Wilkoff, B.L. Cardiac implantable electronic device infections: Presentation, management, and patient outcomes. Heart Rhythm. 2010, 7, 1043–1047.
  38. Korkerdsup, T.; Ngarmukos, T.; Sungkanuparph, S.; Phuphuakrat, A. Cardiac implantable electronic device infection in the cardiac referral center in Thailand: Incidence, microbiology, risk factors, and outcomes. J. Arrhythm. 2018, 34, 632–639.
  39. Stöver, T.; Lenarz, T. Biomaterials in cochlear implants. GMS Curr. Top. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2009, 8, Doc10.
  40. Lodhi, F.; Coelho, D.H. Non-tuberculous mycobacterial cochlear implant infection: An emerging pathogen. Cochlear Implant. Int. 2015, 16, 237–240.
  41. Sharma, S.; Gupta, A.; Bhatia, K.; Lahiri, A.K.; Singh, S. Salvaging cochlear implant after wound infection: Well worth a try. Cochlear Implant. Int. 2017, 18, 230–234.
  42. Tawfik, K.O.; Golub, J.S.; Roland, J.T.; Samy, R.N. Recurrent cochlear implant infection treated with exteriorization and partial mastoid obliteration. Cochlear Implant. Int. 2016, 17, 58–61.
  43. Vaid, N.; Vaid, S.; Manikoth, M. Case report-Biofilm infection of a cochlear implant. Cochlear Implant. Int. 2013, 14, 117–120.
  44. Zarrintaj, P.; Saeb, M.R.; Ramakrishna, S.; Mozafari, M. Biomaterials selection for neuroprosthetics. Curr. Opin. Biomed. Eng. 2018, 6, 99–109.
  45. Shenai, M.B.; Falconer, R.; Rogers, S. A cupriavidus pauculus infection in a patient with a deep brain stimulation implant. Cureus 2019, 11, e6104.
  46. Wei, Z.; Gordon, C.R.; Bergey, G.K.; Sacks, J.M.; Anderson, W.S. Implant site infection and bone flap osteomyelitis associated with the neuropace responsive neurostimulation system. World Neurosurg. 2016, 88, 687.e1–687.e6.
  47. Lawrence, E.L.; Turner, I.G. Materials for urinary catheters: A review of their history and development in the UK. Med. Eng. Phys. 2005, 27, 443–453.
  48. Huang, W.C.; Wann, S.R.; Lin, S.L.; Kunin, C.M.; Kung, M.H.; Lin, C.H.; Hsu, C.W.; Liu, C.P.; Lee, S.S.; Liu, Y.C.; et al. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections in intensive care units can be reduced by prompting physicians to remove unnecessary catheters. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2004, 25, 974–978.
  49. Lo, E.; Nicolle, L.E.; Coffin, S.E.; Gould, C.; Maragakis, L.L.; Meddings, J.; Pegues, D.A.; Pettis, A.M.; Saint, S.; Yokoe, D.S. Strategies to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2014, 35, 464–479.
  50. Luzum, M.; Sebolt, J.; Chopra, V. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection, clostridioides difficile colitis, central line-associated bloodstream infection, and methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus. Med. Clin. North Am. 2020, 104, 663–679.
  51. Li, F.; Song, M.; Xu, L.; Deng, B.; Zhu, S.; Li, X. Risk factors for catheter-associated urinary tract infection among hospitalized patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. J. Adv. Nurs. 2019, 75, 517–527.
  52. Shuman, E.K.; Chenoweth, C.E. Urinary catheter-associated infections. Infect. Dis. Clin. North Am. 2018, 32, 885–897.
  53. Del Bigio, M.R. Biological reactions to cerebrospinal fluid shunt devices: A review of the cellular pathology. Neurosurgery 1998, 42, 319–326.
  54. Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program. Device-associated infections in Canadian acute-care hospitals from 2009 to 2018. Can. Commun. Dis. Rep. 2020, 46, 387–397.
  55. Shibamura-Fujiogi, M.; Ormsby, J.; Breibart, M.; Warf, B.; Priebe, G.P.; Soriano, S.G.; Sandora, T.J.; Yuki, K. Risk factors for pediatric surgical site infection following neurosurgical procedures for hydrocephalus: A retrospective single-center cohort study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2021, 21, 124.
  56. Benachinmardi, K.K.; Ravikumar, R.; Indiradevi, B. Role of biofilm in cerebrospinal fluid shunt infections: A study at tertiary neurocare center from South India. J. Neurosci. Rural. Pract. 2017, 8, 335–341.
  57. Fernández-Méndez, R.; Richards, H.K.; Seeley, H.M.; Pickard, J.D.; Joannides, A.J. UKSR collaborators, Current epidemiology of cerebrospinal fluid shunt surgery in the UK and Ireland (2004–2013). J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2019, 90, 747–754.
  58. Deshmukh, R.M.; Kulkarni, S.S. A review on biomaterials in orthopedic bone plate application. International J. Curr. Eng. Technol. 2015, 5, 2587–2591.
  59. Toro-Aguilera, Á.; Zuriarrain, S.W.; Masdeu, M.G.; Sayol, R.R.; Billi, A.M.; Carrera, I.; de Caso, J. Risk factors for infection in fixation of distal tibia fractures. Injury 2021, 52 (Suppl. 4), S104–S108.
  60. Guillaume, B. Dental implants: A review. Morphologie 2016, 100, 189–198.
  61. Neely, A.L.; Maalhagh-Fard, A. Successful management of early peri-implant infection and bone loss using a multidisciplinary treatment approach. Clin. Adv. Periodontics 2018, 8, 5–10.
  62. Patton, D.; Kiewiet, N.; Brage, M. Infected total ankle arthroplasty: Risk factors and treatment options. Foot Ankle Int. 2015, 36, 626–634.
  63. Gbejuade, H.O.; Lovering, A.M.; Webb, J.C. The role of microbial biofilms in prosthetic joint infections. Acta Orthop. 2015, 86, 147–158.
  64. Bayston, R.; Lari, J. A study of the sources of infection in colonised shunts. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 1974, 16, 16–22.
  65. Reynolds-Campbell, G.; Nicholson, A.; Thoms-Rodriguez, C.A. Oral bacterial infections: Diagnosis and management. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 2017, 61, 305–318.
  66. Masters, E.A.; Ricciardi, B.F.; de Mesy Bentley, K.L.; Moriarty, T.F.; Schwarz, E.M.; Muthukrishnan, G. Skeletal infections: Microbial pathogenesis, immunity and clinical management. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2022, 20, 385–400.
  67. Bain, C.J.; Odili, J. Late infection of an alloplastic chin implant masquerading as squamous cell carcinoma. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2012, 65, e151–e152.
  68. Chang, J.; Lee, G.W. Late hematogenous bacterial infections of breast implants: Two case reports of unique bacterial infections. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2011, 67, 14–16.
  69. Beidas, O.E.; Rabb, C.H.; Sawan, K.T.; Tan, B.K. The pseudomeningocoele that wasn’t: Case report of an adult who presented with a late infection of an implant. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2011, 64, 1228–1231.
  70. Vichitvejpaisal, P.; Dalvin, L.A.; Lally, S.E.; Shields, C.L. Delayed implant infection with Cutibacterium acnes (Propionibacterium acnes) 30 years after silicone sheet orbital floor implant. Orbit 2020, 39, 139–142.
  71. Coden, D.J.; Hornblass, A. Propionibacterium acnes orbital abscess. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1990, 108, 481.
  72. Hannouille, J.; Belgrado, J.P.; Vankerchove, S.; Vandermeeren, L. Breast implant infection with pasteurella canis: First case-report. JPRAS Open 2019, 21, 86–88.
  73. Oses, M.; Ordás, C.M.; Feliz, C.; Del Val, J.; Ayerbe, J.; García-Ruiz, P.J. Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs as a risk factor for delayed DBS implant infection. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 2018, 55, 143–144.
  74. Young, P.; Riga, A.; Brunelli, J. Nocardia nova infection of tibia tenodesis implant after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in an immunocompetent patient. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. Glob. Res. Rev. 2020, 4, e19.00167.
  75. Paziuk, T.; Levicoff, E.; Tan, T.; Good, R. Periprosthetic joint infection with listeria monocytogenes: A case report. JBJS Case Connect 2020, 10, e1900489.
  76. Madden, G.R.; Poulter, M.D.; Crawford, M.P.; Wilson, D.S.; Donowitz, G.R. Case report: Anaerobiospirillum prosthetic joint infection in a heart transplant recipient. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2019, 20, 301.
  77. Haimes, M.A.; Nelms, N.J. Total knee bartonella henselae infection: An unusual manifestation of cat scratch disease: A case report. JBJS Case Connect 2019, 9, e0081.
  78. Posti, J.P.; Piitulainen, J.M.; Hupa, L.; Fagerlund, S.; Frantzén, J.; Aitasalo, K.M.J.; Vuorinen, V.; Serlo, W.; Syrjänen, S.; Vallittu, P.K. A glass fiber-reinforced composite—bioactive glass cranioplasty implant: A case study of an early development stage implant removed due to a late infection. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2016, 55, 191–200.
  79. Wahl, P.; Sprecher, C.M.; Brüning, C.; Meier, C.; Milz, S.; Gautier, E.; Moriarty, T.F. Successful bony integration of a porous tantalum implant despite longlasting and ongoing infection: Histologic workup of an explanted shoulder prosthesis. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2018, 106, 2924–2931.
  80. Hurdle, J.G.; O’Neill, A.J.; Chopra, I.; Lee, R.E. Targeting bacterial membrane function: An underexploited mechanism for treating persistent infections. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2011, 9, 62–75.
  81. Dowd, S.E.; Sun, Y.; Secor, P.R.; Rhoads, D.D.; Wolcott, B.M.; James, G.A.; Wolcott, R.D. Survey of bacterial diversity in chronic wounds using pyrosequencing, DGGE, and full ribosome shotgun sequencing. BMC Microbiol. 2008, 8, 43.
  82. Ryan, K.J.; Ahmad, N.; Alspaugh, J.A.; Drew, W.L. Sherris Medical Microbiology, 7th ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 381–735.
  83. Männik, J.; Driessen, R.; Galajda, P.; Keymer, J.E.; Dekker, C. Bacterial growth and motility in sub-micron constrictions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 14861–14866.
  84. Pianetti, A.; Battistelli, M.; Citterio, B.; Parlani, C.; Falcieri, E.; Bruscolini, F. Morphological changes of Aeromonas hydrophila in response to osmotic stress. Micron 2009, 40, 426–433.
  85. Vargas-Alfredo, N.; Santos-Coquillat, A.; Martínez-Campos, E.; Dorronsoro, A.; Cortajarena, A.L.; Del Campo, A.; Rodríguez-Hernández, J. Highly efficient antibacterial surfaces based on bacterial/cell size selective microporous supports. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 44270–44280.
  86. Costa, F.; Carvalho, I.F.; Montelaro, R.C.; Gomes, P.; Cristina, M.; Martins, L. Covalent immobilization of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) onto biomaterial surfaces. Acta Biomater. 2011, 7, 1431–1440.
  87. Lister, J. On a new method of treating compound fracture, abscess, etc.: With observations on the conditions of suppuration. Lancet 1867, 89, 326–329.
  88. Durand, G.A.; Raoult, D.; Dubourg, G. Antibiotic discovery: History, methods and perspectives. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2019, 53, 371–382.
  89. Bryson, D.J.; Morris, D.L.J.; Shivji, F.S.; Rollins, K.R.; Snape, S.; Ollivere, B.J. Antibiotic prophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery: Difficult decisions in an era of evolving antibiotic resistance. Bone Joint J. 2016, 98, 1014–1019.
  90. Li, B.; Webster, T.J. Bacteria antibiotic resistance: New challenges and opportunities for implant-associated orthopedic infections. J. Orthop. Res. 2018, 36, 22–32.
  91. Makabenta, J.M.V.; Nabawy, A.; Li, C.H.; Schmidt-Malan, S.; Patel, R.; Rotello, V.M. Nanomaterial-based therapeutics for antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021, 19, 23–36.
  92. Vasiliadis, A.V.; Poutoglidou, F.; Chatziravdeli, V.; Metaxiotis, D.; Beletsiotis, A. Acute periprosthetic hip joint infection caused by multidrug-resistant acinetobacter baumannii: Is debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and implant retention a viable treatment option? Cureus 2021, 13, e13090.
  93. Okada, A.; Shoda, M.; Tabata, H.; Kobayashi, H.; Shoin, W.; Okano, T.; Yoshie, K.; Kato, K.; Motoki, H.; Kuwahara, K. Simultaneous infection of abandoned leads and newly implanted leadless cardiac pacemaker: Why did this occur? J. Cardiol. Cases 2020, 23, 35–37.
  94. Jhaveri, V.V.; Singhal, D.; Riedel, S.; Rowley, C.F.; Nathavitharana, R.R. Surgical cure of clarithromycin resistant Mycobacterium chelonae breast implant infection: A case report and review of the literature. J. Clin. Tuberc. Other Mycobact. Dis. 2020, 21, 100183.
  95. El-Zein, R.S.; Stelzer, M.; Hatanelas, J.; Goodlive, T.W.; Amin, A.K. A ghost left behind after transvenous lead extraction: A finding to be feared. Am. J. Case Rep. 2020, 21, e924243.
  96. Palacios, L.; de Nova, A.A.; Pardo, M.G. Conservative multimodal management of osteosynthesis material in surgical wounds with polymicrobial superinfection, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Clinical case. Rev. Española Cirugía Ortopédica Traumatol. (Engl. Ed.) 2020, 64, 125–129.
  97. Hwang, S.O.; Chang, L.S. Salvage of an exposed cranial prosthetic implant using a transposition flap with an indwelling antibiotic irrigation system. Arch. Craniofac. Surg. 2020, 21, 73–76.
  98. Fukushima, S.; Komune, N.; Kamizono, K.; Matsumoto, N.; Takaiwa, K.; Nakagawa, T.; Kadota, H. Use of negative pressure wound therapy to treat a cochlear implant infection around the auricle: A case report. J. Wound Care 2020, 29, 568–571.
  99. Bajaj, T.; Karapetians, A.; Karapetians, N.; Duong, H.; Heidari, A. Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis presenting as neutrophilic meningoencephalitis. AME Case Rep. 2020, 4, 4.
  100. Hisanaga, K.; Kadota, H.; Fukushima, S.; Inatomi, Y.; Shimamoto, R.; Kamizono, K.; Hanada, M.; Yoshida, S. Toxic shock syndrome caused by staphylococcal infection after breast implant surgery: A case report and literature review. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2019, 83, 359–362.
  101. Meleca, J.B.; Bryson, P.C. Delayed laryngeal implant infection and laryngocutaneous fistula after medialization laryngoplasty. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2019, 40, 462–464.
  102. Siebenbürger, G.; Grabein, B.; Schenck, T.; Kammerlander, C.; Böcker, W.; Zeckey, C. Eradication of acinetobacter baumannii/enterobacter cloacae complex in an open proximal tibial fracture and closed drop foot correction with a multidisciplinary approach using the taylor spatial frame®: A case report. Eur. J. Med. Res. 2019, 24, 2.
  103. Nozoe, M.; Yoshida, D.; Nagatomo, D.; Suematsu, N.; Kubota, T.; Okabe, M.; Yamamoto, Y. Successful percutaneous retrieval of a micra transcatheter pacing system at 8 weeks after implantation. J. Arrhythm. 2018, 34, 653–655.
  104. Bonacker, J.; Darowski, M.; Haar, P.; Westphal, T.; Bergschmidt, P. Periprosthetic tibial fracture with nonunion and ascending prosthetic joint infection: A case report of an individual treatment strategy. J. Orthop. Case Rep. 2018, 8, 3–8.
  105. Rico-Nieto, A.; Moreno-Ramos, F.; Fernández-Baillo, N. Lumbar arthrodesis infection by multi-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae, successfully treated with implant retention and ceftazidime/avibactam. Rev. Española Cirugía Ortopédica Traumatol. (Engl. Ed.) 2018, 62, 471–473.
  106. Vaidya, G.N.; Deam, A.G. Simultaneous suction debulking of lead vegetation prior to percutaneous lead extraction. J. Cardiol. Cases. 2018, 18, 17–19.
  107. Sebastian, S.; Malhotra, R.; Pande, A.; Gautam, D.; Xess, I.; Dhawan, B. Staged reimplantation of a total hip prosthesis after co-infection with candida tropicalis and staphylococcus haemolyticus: A case report. Mycopathologia 2018, 183, 579–584.
  108. Mahalingam, P.; Topiwalla, T.T.; Ganesan, G. Drug-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococcal endophthalmitis following dexamethasone intravitreal implant. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2017, 65, 634–636.
  109. Gharacholou, S.M.; Dworak, M.; Dababneh, A.S.; Palraj, R.V.; Roskos, M.C.; Chapman, S.C. Acute infection of viabahn stent graft in the popliteal artery. J. Vasc. Surg. Cases Innov. Tech. 2017, 3, 69–73.
  110. Takizawa, T.; Tsutsumimoto, T.; Yui, M.; Misawa, H. Surgical site infections caused by methicillin-resistant staphylococcus epidermidis after spinal instrumentation surgery. Spine 2017, 42, 525–530.
  111. Savage, V.J.; Chopra, I.; O’Neill, A.J. Staphylococcus aureus biofilms promote horizontal transfer of antibiotic resistance. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2013, 57, 1968–1970.
  112. Naylor, N.R.; Atun, R.; Zhu, N.; Kulasabanathan, K.; Silva, S.; Chatterjee, A.; Knight, G.M.; Robotham, J.V. Estimating the burden of antimicrobial resistance: A systematic literature review. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2018, 7, 58.
  113. Zilberman, M.; Elsner, J.J. Antibiotic-eluting medical devices for various applications. J. Control Release 2008, 130, 202–215.
  114. Freischmidt, H.; Armbruster, J.; Reiter, G.; Grützner, P.A.; Helbig, L.; Guehring, T. Individualized techniques of implant coating with an antibiotic-loaded, hydroxyapatite/calcium sulphate bone graft substitute. Ther. Clin. Risk Manag. 2020, 16, 689–694.
  115. Campoccia, D.; Montanaro, L.; Speziale, P.; Arciola, C.R. Antibiotic-loaded biomaterials and the risks for the spread of antibiotic resistance following their prophylactic and therapeutic clinical use. Biomaterials 2010, 31, 6363–6377.
  116. Cao, H.; Qin, H.; Li, Y.; Jandt, K.D. The action-networks of nanosilver: Bridging the gap between material and biology. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2021, 26, e2100619.
  117. Percival, S.L.; Bowler, P.G.; Russell, D. Bacterial resistance to silver in wound care. J. Hosp. Infect. 2005, 60, 1–7.
  118. Panáček, A.; Kvítek, L.; Smékalová, M.; Večeřová, R.; Kolář, M.; Röderová, M.; Dyčka, F.; Šebela, M.; Prucek, R.; Tomanec, O.; et al. Bacterial resistance to silver nanoparticles and how to overcome it. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2018, 13, 65–71.
  119. Nadeem, S.F.; Gohar, U.F.; Tahir, S.F.; Mukhtar, H.; Pornpukdeewattana, S.; Nukthamna, P.; Moula Ali, A.M.; Bavisetty, S.C.B.; Massa, S. Antimicrobial resistance: More than 70 years of war between humans and bacteria. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2020, 46, 578–599.
  120. Ciofu, O.; Moser, C.; Jensen, P.Ø.; Høiby, N. Tolerance and resistance of microbial biofilms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2022.
  121. Wu, X.X.; Zhang, Y.; Hu, T.; Li, W.X.; Li, Z.L.; Hu, H.J.; Zhu, S.R.; Chen, W.Z.; Zhou, C.S.; Jiang, G.B. Long-term antibacterial composite via alginate aerogel sustained release of antibiotics and Cu used for bone tissue bacteria infection. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 167, 1211–1220.
  122. Mukai, M.; Uchida, K.; Sugo, K.; Nakasu, M.; Nakajima, T.; Takata, K.; Takaso, M.; Urabe, K. Long-term antibacterial activity of vancomycin from calcium phosphate cement in vivo. Biomed. Mater. Eng. 2022, 33, 41–50.
  123. Cheng, Y.; Mei, S.; Kong, X.; Liu, X.; Gao, B.; Chen, B.; Wu, J. Long-term antibacterial activity of a composite coating on titanium for dental implant application. J. Biomater. Appl. 2021, 35, 643–654.
  124. Tsutsumi, H.; Tsutsumi, Y.; Shimabukuro, M.; Manaka, T.; Chen, P.; Ashida, M.; Ishikawa, K.; Katayama, H.; Hanaw, T. Investigation of the long-term antibacterial properties of titanium by two-step micro-arc oxidation treatment. Coatings 2021, 11, 798.
  125. Liu, F.; Cheng, X.; Xiao, L.; Wang, Q.; Yan, K.; Su, Z.; Wang, L.; Ma, C.; Wang, Y. Inside-outside Ag nanoparticles-loaded polylactic acid electrospun fiber for long-term antibacterial and bone regeneration. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 167, 1338–1348.
  126. Tao, S.; Yang, X.; Liao, L.; Yang, J.; Liang, K.; Zeng, S.; Zhou, J.; Zhang, M.; Li, J. A novel anticaries agent, honokiol-loaded poly(amido amine) dendrimer, for simultaneous long-term antibacterial treatment and remineralization of demineralized enamel. Dent. Mater. 2021, 37, 1337–1349.
  127. Jia, J.; Duan, S.; Zhou, X.; Sun, L.; Qin, C.; Li, M.; Ge, F. Long-term antibacterial film nanocomposite incorporated with patchouli essential oil prepared by supercritical co 2 cyclic impregnation for wound dressing. Molecules 2021, 26, 5005.
  128. Kitagawa, H.; Kitagawa, R.; Tsuboi, R.; Hirose, N.; Thongthai, P.; Sakai, H.; Ueda, M.; Ono, S.; Sasaki, J.; Ooya, T.; et al. Development of endodontic sealers containing antimicrobial-loaded polymer particles with long-term antibacterial effects. Dent. Mater. 2021, 37, 1248–1259.
  129. Wan, R.; Chu, S.; Wang, X.; Lei, L.; Tang, H.; Hu, G.; Dong, L.; Li, D.; Gu, H. Study on the osteogenesis of rat mesenchymal stem cells and the long-term antibacterial activity of Staphylococcus epidermidis on the surface of silver-rich TiN/Ag modified titanium alloy. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2020, 108, 3008–3021.
  130. Liang, T.; Wang, Y.; Zeng, L.; Liu, Y.; Qiao, L.; Zhang, S.; Zhao, R.; Li, G.; Zhang, R.; Xiang, J.; et al. Copper-doped 3D porous coating developed on Ti-6Al-4V alloys and its in vitro long-term antibacterial ability. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2020, 509, 144717.
  131. Zhang, F.; Zhou, M.; Gu, W.; Shen, Z.; Ma, X.; Lu, F.; Yang, X.; Zheng, Y.; Gou, Z. Zinc-/copper-substituted dicalcium silicate cement: Advanced biomaterials with enhanced osteogenesis and long-term antibacterial properties. J. Mater. Chem. B. 2020, 8, 1060–1070.
  132. Yu, H.; Chen, X.; Cai, J.; Ye, D.; Wu, Y.; Liu, P. Dual controlled release nanomicelle-in-nanofiber system for long-term antibacterial medical dressings. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 2019, 30, 64–76.
  133. Daud, N.M.; Masri, N.A.; Malek, N.A.N.N.; Razak, S.I.A.; Saidin, S. Long-term antibacterial and stable chlorhexidine-polydopamine coating on stainless steel 316L. Prog. Org. Coat. 2018, 122, 147–153.
  134. Shivaram, A.; Bose, S.; Bandyopadhyay, A. Understanding long-term silver release from surface modified porous titanium implants. Acta Biomater. 2017, 58, 550–560.
  135. Zhao, R.; Lv, M.; Li, Y.; Sun, M.; Kong, W.; Wang, L.; Song, S.; Fan, C.; Jia, L.; Qiu, S.; et al. Stable nanocomposite based on pegylated and silver nanoparticles loaded graphene oxide for long-term antibacterial activity. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 15328–15341.
  136. Wang, G.; Feng, H.; Jin, W.; Gao, A.; Peng, X.; Li, W.; Wu, H.; Li, Z.; Chu, P.K. Long-term antibacterial characteristics and cytocompatibility of titania nanotubes loaded with Au nanoparticles without photocatalytic effects. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2017, 414, 230–237.
  137. Uhm, S.; Kwon, J.; Song, D.; Lee, E.; Jeong, W.; Oh, S.; Kim, K.; Choi, E.H.; Kim, K. Long-Term antibacterial performance and bioactivity of plasma-engineered Ag-NPs/TiO2. J. Biomed. Nanotechnol. 2016, 12, 1890–1906.
  138. Qin, H.; Cao, H.; Zhao, Y.; Zhu, C.; Cheng, T.; Wang, Q.; Peng, X.; Cheng, M.; Wang, J.; Jin, G.; et al. In vitro and in vivo anti-biofilm effects of silver nanoparticles immobilized on titanium. Biomaterials 2014, 35, 9114–9125.
  139. Li, M.; Neoh, K.G.; Xu, L.Q.; Wang, R.; Kang, E.; Lau, T.; Olszyna, D.P.; Chiong, E. Surface modification of silicone for biomedical applications requiring long-term antibacterial, antifouling, and hemocompatible properties. Langmuir 2012, 28, 16408–16422.
  140. Urabe, K.; Naruse, K.; Hattori, H.; Hirano, M.; Uchida, K.; Onuma, K.; Park, H.J.; Itoman, M. In vitro comparison of elution characteristics of vancomycin from calcium phosphate cement and polymethylmethacrylate. J. Orthop. Sci. 2009, 14, 784–793.
  141. Uchida, K.; Sugo, K.; Nakajima, T.; Nakawaki, M.; Takano, S.; Nagura, N.; Takaso, M.; Urabe, K. In vivo release of vancomycin from calcium phosphate cement. Biomed. Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 4560647.
  142. Bandyopadhyay, A.; Shivaram, A.; Tarafder, S.; Sahasrabudhe, H.; Banerjee, D.; Bose, S. In vivo response of laser processed porous titanium implants for load-bearing implants. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2017, 45, 249–260.
  143. Cao, H.; Liu, X.; Meng, F.; Chu, P.K. Biological actions of silver nanoparticles embedded in titanium controlled by micro-galvanic effects. Biomaterials 2011, 32, 693–705.
  144. Ono, S.; Imai, R.; Ida, Y.; Shibata, D.; Komiya, T.; Matsumura, H. Increased wound pH as an indicator of local wound infection in second degree burns. Burns 2015, 41, 820–824.
  145. Sawyer, R.G.; Spengler, M.D.; Adams, R.B.; Pruett, T.L. The peritoneal environment during infection. The effect of monomicrobial and polymicrobial bacteria on pO2 and pH. Ann. Surg. 1991, 213, 253–260.
  146. Stassen, W.N.; McCullough, A.J.; Bacon, B.R.; Gutnik, S.H.; Wadiwala, I.M.; McLaren, C.; Kalhan, S.C.; Tavill, A.S. Immediate diagnostic criteria for bacterial infection of ascitic fluid. Evaluation of ascitic fluid polymorphonuclear leukocyte count, pH, and lactate concentration, alone and in combination. Gastroenterology 1986, 90, 1247–1254.
  147. Del Campo, A.; Echeverría, C.; Martín, M.S.; Cuervo-Rodríguez, R.; Fernández-García, M.; Muñoz-Bonilla, A. Porous microstructured surfaces with ph-triggered antibacterial properties. Macromol. Biosci. 2019, 19, 1900127.
  148. Wei, T.; Yu, Q.; Zhan, W.; Chen, H. A smart antibacterial surface for the on-demand killing and releasing of bacteria. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2016, 5, 449–456.
  149. Wei, Z.; Yang, J.; Long, S.; Zhang, G.; Wang, X. Smart and in-situ formation electrospun fibrous membrane for the control of antimicrobial efficacy. Smart Mater. Med. 2021, 2, 87–95.
  150. Pinho, E.; Machado, S.; Soares, G. Smart hydrogel for the ph-selective drug delivery of antimicrobial compounds. Macromol. Symp. 2019, 385, 1800182.
  151. Ramos, M.L.P.; González, J.A.; Fabian, L.; Pérez, C.J.; Villanueva, M.E.; Copello, G.J. Sustainable and smart keratin hydrogel with pH-sensitive swelling and enhanced mechanical properties. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 2017, 78, 619–626.
  152. Villanueva, M.E.; Cuestas, M.L.; Pérez, C.J.; Dall Orto, V.C.; Copello, G.J. Smart release of antimicrobial ZnO nanoplates from a pH-responsive keratin hydrogel. J. Colloid. Interface Sci. 2019, 536, 372–380.
  153. Tao, B.; Deng, Y.; Song, L.; Ma, W.; Qian, Y.; Lin, C.; Yuan, Z.; Lu, L.; Chen, M.; Yang, X.; et al. BMP2-loaded titania nanotubes coating with pH-responsive multilayers for bacterial infections inhibition and osteogenic activity improvement. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2019, 177, 242–252.
  154. Phoungtawee, P.; Seidi, F.; Treetong, A.; Warin, C.; Klamchuen, A.; Crespy, D. Polymers with hemiaminal ether linkages for ph-responsive antibacterial materials. ACS Macro. Lett. 2021, 10, 365–369.
  155. De Silva, C.C.; Israni, N.; Zanwar, A.; Jagtap, A.; Leophairatana, P.; Koberstein, J.T.; Modak, S.M. “Smart” polymer enhances the efficacy of topical antimicrobial agents. Burns 2019, 45, 1418–1429.
  156. Hu, C.; Long, L.; Cao, J.; Zhang, S.; Wang, Y. Dual-crosslinked mussel-inspired smart hydrogels with enhanced antibacterial and angiogenic properties for chronic infected diabetic wound treatment via pH-responsive quick cargo release. Chem. Eng. 2021, 411, 128564.
  157. Quartinello, F.; Tallian, C.; Auer, J.; Schön, H.; Vielnascher, R.; Weinberger, S.; Wieland, K.; Weihs, A.M.; Herrero-Rollett, A.; Lendl, B.; et al. Smart textiles in wound care: Functionalization of cotton/PET blends with antimicrobial nanocapsules. J. Mater. Chem. B. 2019, 7, 6592–6603.
  158. Kaila, V.R.I.; Wikström, M. Architecture of bacterial respiratory chains. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021, 19, 319–330.
  159. Reguera, G.; McCarthy, K.D.; Mehta, T.; Nicoll, J.S.; Tuominen, M.T.; Lovley, D.R. Extracellular electron transfer via microbial nanowires. Nature 2005, 435, 1098–1101.
  160. Harris, H.W.; El-Naggar, M.Y.; Bretschger, O.; Ward, M.J.; Romine, M.F.; Obraztsova, A.Y.; Nealson, K.H. Electrokinesis is a microbial behavior that requires extracellular electron transport. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 326–331.
  161. Kato, S.; Hashimoto, K.; Watanabe, K. Microbial interspecies electron transfer via electric currents through conductive minerals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 10042–10046.
  162. Light, S.H.; Méheust, R.; Ferrell, J.L.; Cho, J.; Deng, D.; Agostoni, M.; Iavarone, A.T.; Banfield, J.F.; D’Orazio, S.E.F.; Portnoy, D.A. Extracellular electron transfer powers flavinylated extracellular reductases in Gram-positive bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 26892–26899.
  163. Shi, L.; Dong, H.; Reguera, G.; Beyenal, H.; Lu, A.; Liu, J.; Yu, H.; Fredrickson, J.K. Extracellular electron transfer mechanisms between microorganisms and minerals. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2016, 14, 651–662.
  164. Pankratova, G.; Hederstedt, L.; Gorton, L. Extracellular electron transfer features of Gram-positive bacteria. Anal. Chim. Acta 2019, 1076, 32–47.
  165. Cao, H.; Qiao, Y.; Liu, X.; Lu, T.; Cui, T.; Meng, F.; Chu, P.K. Electron storage mediated dark antibacterial action of bound silver nanoparticles: Smaller is not always better. Acta. Biomater. 2013, 9, 5100–5110.
  166. Cao, H.; Qiao, Y.; Meng, F.; Liu, X. Spacing-dependent antimicrobial efficacy of immobilized silver nanoparticles. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2014, 5, 743–748.
  167. Wang, M.; Cao, H.; Meng, F.; Zhao, X.; Ping, Y.; Lü, X.; Liu, X. Schottky barrier dependent antimicrobial efficacy of silver nanoparticles. Mater. Lett. 2016, 179, 1–4.
  168. Cao, H.; Meng, F.; Liu, X. Antimicrobial activity of tantalum oxide coatings decorated with Ag nanoparticles. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 2016, 34, 04C102.
  169. Yang, M.; Liu, H.; Qiu, C.; Iatsunskyi, I.; Coy, E.; Moya, S.; Wang, Z.; Wu, W.; Zhao, X.; Wang, G. Electron transfer correlated antibacterial activity of biocompatible graphene Nanosheets-TiO2 coatings. Carbon 2020, 166, 350–360.
  170. Li, J.; Wang, J.; Wang, D.; Guo, G.; Yeung, K.W.K.; Zhang, X.; Liu, X. Band gap engineering of titania film through cobalt regulation for oxidative damage of bacterial respiration and viability. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 27475–27490.
  171. Wang, R.; Zhou, T.; Liu, J.; Zhang, X.; Long, F.; Liu, L. Bilayer microstructure of antibacterial TiO2 coating on Ti6Al4V fabricated via micro-arc oxidation in W-containing electrolytes. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2021, 413, 127094.
  172. Ray, P.C.; Khan, S.A.; Singh, A.K.; Senapati, D.; Fan, Z. Nanomaterials for targeted detection and photothermal killing of bacteria. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012, 41, 3193–3209.
  173. Qu, Y.; Wei, T.; Zhao, J.; Jiang, S.; Yang, P.; Yu, Q.; Chen, H. Regenerable smart antibacterial surfaces: Full removal of killed bacteria via a sequential degradable layer. J. Mater. Chem. B. 2018, 6, 3946–3955.
  174. Wang, Y.; Wei, T.; Qu, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Huang, C.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, Q.; Chen, H. Smart, photothermally activated, antibacterial surfaces with thermally triggered bacteria-releasing properties. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 21283–21291.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Help
Top