Novel coatings for hard tissue implants

A novel deposition process named CoBlastTM, based on grit blasting technology, has been used to deposit hydroxyapatite (HA) onto titanium (Ti) metal using a dopant/abrasive regime. The various powders (HA powder, apatitic abrasives) and the treated substrates were characterised for chemical composition, coating coverage, crystallinity and topography including surface roughness. The surface roughness of the HA surfaces could be altered using apatitic abrasives of different particle sizes. Compared to the standard plasma spraying process, the CoBlast surface produced excellent coating adhesion, lower dissolution, higher levels of mechanical and chemical stability in stimulated body fluid (SBF). Enhanced viability of osteoblastic cells was also observed on the CoBlast HA surfaces compared to the microblast and untreated Ti as well as the plasma HA coating. CoBlast offers an alternative to the traditional methods of coating HA implants with added versatility. Apatites substituted with antimicrobial metals can also be deposited to add functionality to HA coatings without cytotoxicty. The potential use of these coatings as an infection preventing strategy for application on hard tissue implants was assessed in vitro and also in vivo. Surface physicochemical properties and morphology were determined in addition to surface cytocompatibility assessments using a MG-63 osteoblast cell line. The antibacterial potential of the immobilised metal ion on the surface and the eluted ion to a lesser extent, contributed to the anticolonising behaviour of the surfaces against a standard bacteria strain (S. aureus) as well as a number of clinically relevant strains (MRSA, MSSA and S. epidermis). The results revealed that the surfaces coated with silver substituted apatites (AgA) outperformed the other apatites examined (apatites loaded with Zn, Sr and both Ag and Sr ions). Assessment of bacterial adherence on coated K-wires following subcutaneous implantation in a nude mouse infection model (S. aureus) for two days demonstrated that the 12% wt surface outperformed the 5% wt AgA coating. Lower inflammatory responses were activated with the insertion of the Ag loaded K-wires with a localised infection at the implantation site noted over the two day study period. These results indicated that the AgA coating on the surface of orthopaedic implants demonstrate good biocompatibility whilst inhibiting bacterial adhesion and colonising of the implant surface.

The effectiveness of using patient-reported outcome measures as quality improvement tools

Aim: To investigate the value of using PROMs as quality improvement tools. Methods: Two systematic reviews were undertaken. The first reviewed the quantitative literature on the impact of PROMs feedback and the second reviewed the qualitative literature on the use of PROMs in practice. These reviews informed the focus of the primary research. A cluster randomised controlled trial (PROFILE) examined the impact of providing peer benchmarked PROMs feedback to consultant orthopaedic surgeons on improving outcomes for hip replacement surgery. Qualitative interviews with surgeons in the intervention arm of the trial examined the view of and reactions to the feedback. Results: The quantitative review of 17 studies found weak evidence to suggest that providing PROMs feedback to professionals improves patient outcomes. The qualitative review of 16 studies identified the barriers and facilitators to the use of PROMs based on four themes: practical considerations, attitudes towards the data, methodological concerns and the impact of feedback on care. The PROFILE trial included 11 surgeons and 215 patients in the intervention arm, and 10 surgeons and 217 patients in the control arm. The trial found no significant difference in the Oxford Hip Score between the arms (-0.7, 95% CI -1.9-0.5, p=0.2). Interviews with surgeons revealed mixed opinions about the value of the PROMs feedback and the information did not promote explicit changes to their practice. Conclusion: It is important to use PROMs which have been validated for the specific purpose of performance measurement, consult with professionals when developing a PROMs feedback intervention, communicate with professionals about the objectives of the data collection, educate professionals on the properties and interpretation of the data, and support professionals in using the information to improve care. It is also imperative that the burden of data collection and dissemination of the information is minimised.