Bioactive glass as dead space management following debridement of type 3 chronic osteomyelitis

  • Willem Oosthuysen
  • Rudolph Venter
  • Yashwant Tanwar
  • Nando FerreiraEmail author
Original Paper



Chronic osteomyelitis is a challenging condition to treat and although no exact treatment guidelines exist, the surgical management strategy includes wide resection of necrotic and infected bone followed by dead space management. This study evaluates the use of bioactive glass as a single-stage procedure for dead space management following surgical debridement.


A consecutive series of 24 patients with Cierny-Mader type 3 osteomyelitis, treated between March 2016 and June 2018, were identified and evaluated retrospectively. Patients were managed with bioactive glass as dead space management following surgical debridement.


Of the patients who completed more than 12 months follow-up, all fourteen (100%) showed complete resolution of symptoms. Of the remaining ten patients with less than 12 months follow-up, eight had complete resolution of symptoms. Therefore, a preliminary result of 22 out of 24 patients (91.65%) had resolution of symptoms following debridement and dead space management with bioactive glass. One patient experienced a complication related to the use of bioactive glass. This manifested as prolonged serous wound drainage that resolved with local wound care.


The use of bioactive glass appears to be effective for dead space management following debridement of anatomical type 3 chronic osteomyelitis of the appendicular skeleton.


Chronic osteomyelitis Bioactive glass Dead space management 



  1. 1.
    Hall BB, Rosenblatt JE, Fitzgerald RH Jr (1984) Anaerobic septic arthritis and osteomyelitis. Orthop Clin North Am 15(3):505–516Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haas DW, McAndrew MP (1996) Bacterial osteomyelitis in adults: evolving considerations in diagnosis and treatment. Am J Med 101(5):550–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cierny G 3rd (2011) Surgical treatment of osteomyelitis. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(Suppl 1):190S–204SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gristina AG (1987) Biomaterial-centered infection: microbial adhesion versus tissue integration. Science 237(4822):1588–1595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Trampuz A, Zimmerli W (2006) Diagnosis and treatment of infections associated with fracture-fixation devices. Injury 37(Suppl 2):S59–S66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stewart PS (2001) Multicellular resistance: biofilms. Trends Microbiol 9(5):204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stewart PS, Costerton JW (2001) Antibiotic resistance of bacteria in biofilms. Lancet 358(9276):135–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Donlan RM (2002) Biofilms: microbial life on surfaces. Emerg Infect Dis 8(9):881–890PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Donlan RM, Costerton JW (2002) Biofilms: survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin Microbiol Rev 15(2):167–193PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cierny G 3rd, Mader JT, Penninck JJ (2003) A clinical staging system for adult osteomyelitis. Clin Orthop Relat Res (414):p. 7-24Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walter G, Kemmerer M, Kappler C, Hoffmann R (2012) Treatment algorithms for chronic osteomyelitis. Dtsch Arztebl Int 109(14):257–264PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Simpson AH, Deakin M, Latham JM (2001) Chronic osteomyelitis. The effect of the extent of surgical resection on infection-free survival. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 83(3):403–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parsons B, Strauss E (2004) Surgical management of chronic osteomyelitis. Am J Surg 188(1A Suppl):57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marais LC, Ferreira N, Aldous C, Le Roux TLB (2014) The mangement of chronic osteomyelitis: Part II - Principles of post-infective reconstruction and antibiotic therapy. SA Orthop J 13(3):32–39Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Calhoun JH, Manring MM, Shirtliff M (2009) Osteomyelitis of the long bones. Semin Plast Surg 23(2):59–72PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marais LC, Ferreira N, Aldous C, Le Roux TLB (2014) The managemet of chronic osteomyelitis. Part I Diagnostic work-up and surgical principles. SA Orthop J 13(2):42–48Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ferguson JY, Dudareva M, Riley ND, Stubbs D, Atkins BL, McNally MA (2014) The use of a biodegradable antibiotic-loaded calcium sulphate carrier containing tobramycin for the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis: a series of 195 cases. Bone Joint J 96-B(6):829–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luo S, Jiang T, Yang Y, Yang X, Zhao J (2016) Combination therapy with vancomycin-loaded calcium sulfate and vancomycin-loaded PMMA in the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17(1):502PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gogia JS, Meehan JP, Di Cesare PE, Jamali AA (2009) Local antibiotic therapy in osteomyelitis. Semin Plast Surg 23(2):100–107PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klemm K (2001) The use of antibiotic-containing bead chains in the treatment of chronic bone infections. Clin Microbiol Infect 7(1):28–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Qiu XS, Zheng X, Shi HF, Zhu YC, Guo X, Mao HJ, Xu GY, Chen YX (2015) Antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer as definitive management for osteomyelitis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:254PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Canavese F, Corradin M, Khan A, Mansour M, Rousset M, Samba A (2017) Successful treatment of chronic osteomyelitis in children with debridement, antibiotic-laden cement spacer and bone graft substitute. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 27(2):221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wilson J, Clark AE, Hall M, Hench LL (1993) Tissue response to Bioglass endosseous ridge maintenance implants. J Oral Implantol 19(4):295–302Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Day RM (2005) Bioactive glass stimulates the secretion of angiogenic growth factors and angiogenesis in vitro. Tissue Eng 11(5-6):768–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heikkila JT, Aho HJ, Yli-Urpo A, Happonen RP, Aho AJ (1995) Bone formation in rabbit cancellous bone defects filled with bioactive glass granules. Acta Orthop Scand 66(5):463–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lindfors NC, Aho AJ (2000) Tissue response to bioactive glass and autogenous bone in the rabbit spine. Eur Spine J 9(1):30–35PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Xynos ID, Edgar AJ, Buttery LD, Hench LL, Polak JM (2001) Gene-expression profiling of human osteoblasts following treatment with the ionic products of Bioglass 45S5 dissolution. J Biomed Mater Res 55(2):151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Xynos ID, Hukkanen MV, Batten JJ, Buttery LD, Hench LL, Polak JM (2000) Bioglass 45S5 stimulates osteoblast turnover and enhances bone formation in vitro: implications and applications for bone tissue engineering. Calcif Tissue Int 67(4):321–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Malat TA, Glombitza M, Dahmen J, Hax PM, Steinhausen E (2018) The use of bioactive glass S53P4 as bone graft substitute in the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis and infected non-unions - a retrospective study of 50 patients. Z Orthop Unfall 156(2):152–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Drago L, Romano D, De Vecchi E, Vassena C, Logoluso N, Mattina R, Romano CL (2013) Bioactive glass BAG-S53P4 for the adjunctive treatment of chronic osteomyelitis of the long bones: an in vitro and prospective clinical study. BMC Infect Dis 13:584PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Drago L, Toscano M, Bottagisio M (2018) Recent evidence on bioactive glass antimicrobial and antibiofilm activity: a mini-review. Materials (Basel) 11(2):pPubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Drago L, Vassena C, Fenu S, De Vecchi E, Signori V, De Francesco R, Romano CL (2014) In vitro antibiofilm activity of bioactive glass S53P4. Future Microbiol 9(5):593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lindfors N, Geurts J, Drago L, Arts JJ, Juutilainen V, Hyvonen P, Suda AJ, Domenico A, Artiaco S, Alizadeh C, Brychcy A, Bialecki J, Romano CL (2017) Antibacterial bioactive glass, S53P4, for chronic bone infections - a multinational study. Adv Exp Med Biol 971:81–92CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hench LL (2006) The story of bioglass. J Mater Sci Mater Med 17(11):967–978CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hench LL, Jones JR (2015) Bioactive glasses: frontiers and challenges. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 3:194PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jones JR (2015) Reprint of: Review of bioactive glass: from Hench to hybrids. Acta Biomater 23(Suppl):S53–S82CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kaur G, Pandey OP, Singh K, Homa D, Scott B, Pickrell G (2014) A review of bioactive glasses: their structure, properties, fabrication and apatite formation. J Biomed Mater Res A 102(1):254–274CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Geurts J, Vranken T, Gabriels F, Arts JJ, Moh P (2018) Contemporary treatment of chronic osteomyelitis: implementation in low- and middle-income countries. SA Orthop J 17(2):40–43Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Auregan JC, Begue T (2015) Bioactive glass for long bone infection: a systematic review. Injury 46(Suppl 8):S3–S7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lindfors NC, Hyvonen P, Nyyssonen M, Kirjavainen M, Kankare J, Gullichsen E, Salo J (2010) Bioactive glass S53P4 as bone graft substitute in treatment of osteomyelitis. Bone 47(2):212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lindfors NC, Koski I, Heikkila JT, Mattila K, Aho AJ (2010) A prospective randomized 14-year follow-up study of bioactive glass and autogenous bone as bone graft substitutes in benign bone tumors. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 94(1):157–164Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hulsen DJW, Geurts J, van Gestel NAP, van Rietbergen B, Arts JJ (2016) Mechanical behaviour of bioactive glass granules and morselized cancellous bone allograft in load bearing defects. J Biomech 49(7):1121–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Miguez-Pacheco V, Hench LL, Boccaccini AR (2015) Bioactive glasses beyond bone and teeth: emerging applications in contact with soft tissues. Acta Biomater 13:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ferrando A, Part J, Baeza J (2017) Treatment of cavitary bone defects in chronic osteomyelitis: biogactive glass S53P4 vs. calcium sulphate antibiotic beads. J Bone Jt Infect 2(4):194–201PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hashmi MA, Norman P, Saleh M (2004) The management of chronic osteomyelitis using the Lautenbach method. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 86(2):269–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kanakaris N, Gudipati S, Tosounidis T, Harwood P, Britten S, Giannoudis PV (2014) The treatment of intramedullary osteomyelitis of the femur and tibia using the Reamer-Irrigator-Aspirator system and antibiotic cement rods. Bone Joint J 96-B(6):783–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Corona PS, Espinal L, Rodriguez-Pardo D, Pigrau C, Larrosa N, Flores X (2014) Antibiotic susceptibility in gram-positive chronic joint arthroplasty infections: increased aminoglycoside resistance rate in patients with prior aminoglycoside-impregnated cement spacer use. J Arthroplast 29(8):1617–1621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Keshaw H, Forbes A, Day RM (2005) Release of angiogenic growth factors from cells encapsulated in alginate beads with bioactive glass. Biomaterials 26(19):4171–4179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Day RM, Maquet V, Boccaccini AR, Jerome R, Forbes A (2005) In vitro and in vivo analysis of macroporous biodegradable poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) scaffolds containing bioactive glass. J Biomed Mater Res A 75(4):778–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Geurts J, Vranken T, Chris Arts JJ (2016) Treatment of osteomyelitis by means of bioactive glass - initial experience in the Netherlands. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Orthopaedie, Vol 23, Nr 2, June 2016Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Badie AA, Arafa MS (2019) One-stage surgery for adult chronic osteomyelitis: concomitant use of antibiotic-loaded calcium sulphate and bone marrow aspirate. Int Orthop. 43(5):1061–1070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schlickewei CW, Yarar S, Rueger JM (2014) Eluding antibiotic bone graft substitutes for the treatment of osteomyelitis in long bones. A review: evidence for their use. Orthop Res Rev 6:71–79Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Romano CL, Logoluso N, Meani E, Romano D, De Vecchi E, Vassena C, Drago L (2014). A comparative study of the use of bioactive glass S53P4 and antibiotic-loaded calcium-based bone substitutes in the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-BGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Jia WT, Fu Q, Huang WH, Zhang CQ, Rahaman MN (2015) Comparison of borate bioactive glass and calcium sulfate as implants for the local delivery of teicoplanin in the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-induced osteomyelitis in a rabbit model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 59(12):7571–7580PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zhang X, Jia W, Gu Y, Xiao W, Liu X, Wang D, Zhang C, Huang W, Rahaman MN, Day DE, Zhou N (2010) Teicoplanin-loaded borate bioactive glass implants for treating chronic bone infection in a rabbit tibia osteomyelitis model. Biomaterials 31(22):5865–5874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bergeron E, Marquis ME, Chretien I, Faucheux N (2007) Differentiation of preosteoblasts using a delivery system with BMPs and bioactive glass microspheres. J Mater Sci Mater Med 18(2):255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Liu WC, Robu IS, Patel R, Leu MC, Velez M, Chu TM (2014) The effects of 3D bioactive glass scaffolds and BMP-2 on bone formation in rat femoral critical size defects and adjacent bones. Biomed Mater 9(4):045013CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Tygerberg HospitalStellenbosch UniversityCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations