Effects of cathode design parameters on in vitro antimicrobial efficacy of electrically-activated silver-based iontophoretic system
Post-operative infection is a major risk associated with implantable devices. Prior studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of ionic silver as an alternative to antibiotic-based infection prophylaxis and treatment. The focus of this study is on an electrically activated implant system engineered for active release of antimicrobial silver ions. The objective was to evaluate the effects of the cathode design, especially the cathode material, on the in vitro antimicrobial efficacy of the system. A modified Kirby-Bauer diffusion technique was used for the antimicrobial efficacy evaluations (24 h testing interval). In phase-1 of the study, a three-way ANOVA (n = 6, α = 0.05) was performed to determine the effects of cathode material (silver, titanium, and stainless steel), cathode surface area and electrode separation distance on the efficacy of the system against Staphylococcus aureus. The results show that within the design space tested, none of these parameters had a statistically significant effect on the antimicrobiality of the system (P > 0.15). Subsequently, one-way ANOVA (n = 6, α = 0.05) was conducted in phase-2 to validate the inference regarding the non-significance of the cathode material to the system efficacy using a broader spectrum of pathogens (methicillin-resistant S. aureus, Escherichia coli, Streptococcus agalactiae and Aspergillus flavus) responsible for osteomyelitis. The results confirmed the lack of statistical difference between efficacies of the three cathode material configurations against all pathogens tested (P > 0.58). Overall, the results demonstrate the ability to alter the cathode material and related design parameters in order to minimize the silver usage in the system without adversely affecting its antimicrobial efficacy.
KeywordsCathode Material Implantable Device Orthopaedic Implant Antimicrobial Efficacy Streptococcus Agalactiae
This work was supported by a research Grant from NC State’s 2013 Research and Innovation and Seed Funding (RISF) program. The authors thank Ms. Patty Spears and Ms. Mitsu Suyemoto from NC State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine, and Dr. Gary Payne, Mr. Gregory O’Brian and Dr. Xiaomei Shu from NC State University’s Department of Plant Pathology for their valuable and constructive suggestions during the antimicrobial efficacy testing experiments.
- 1.Center for Disease Control—National Center for Health Statistics. 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhds/4procedures/2010pro4_numberprocedureage.pdf. Accessed 9 Aug 2013.
- 3.The Fredonia Group. Implantable medical devices: industry study with forecasts for 2015 and 2020. Cleveland: Fredonia; 2012.Google Scholar
- 5.Shirwaiker RA, Samberg ME, Cohen PH, Wysk RA, Monteiro-Riviere NA. Nanomaterials and synergistic low-intensity direct current (LIDC) stimulation technology for orthopedic implantable medical devices. Wiley Interdiscip Rev. 2013;5:191–204.Google Scholar
- 12.Chopra I. Controlled release of biologically active silver from nanosilver surfaces. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;4:6903–13.Google Scholar
- 14.Becker RO, Spadaro JA. Treatment of orthopaedic infections with electrically generated silver ions. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1978;60:871.Google Scholar
- 16.Oyama T, Nakano MH, Arai T, Kato D, Maeda N. In vitro evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of iontophoresis against Enterococcus faecalis, Candida albicans, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Bacillus subtilis. J Oral Biosci. 2009;5:91–6.Google Scholar
- 20.Milder FL, Anderson D, Weitzner BD. Iontophoretic material. June 1998. US patent 5759564 A.Google Scholar
- 22.Albrektsson T, Johansson C. Osteoinduction, osteoconduction and osseointegration. Eur Spine J. 2001;2:S96–101.Google Scholar
- 30.Keppel G, Wickens TD. Design and analysis: a researcher’s handbook (4th edition). London: Pearson; 2004.Google Scholar
- 34.Engemann JJ, Carmeli Y, Cosgrove SE, Fowler VG, Bronstein MZ, Trivette SL, Briggs JP, Sexton DJ, Kaye KS. Adverse clinical and economic outcomes attributable to methicillin resistance among patients with Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36:592–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Liu C, Murray BE, Rybak M, Talan DA, Chambers HF, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, Daum RS, Fridkin SK, Gorwitz RJ, Kaplan SL, Karchmer AW, Levine DP. Clinical practice guidelines by the infectious diseases society of America for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52:e18–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 47.Lombardi AV, Berend KR, Adams JB, Karnes JM. Articulating antibiotic spacers: the standard of care for an infected total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2007;30:786–7.Google Scholar
- 48.Kim DK, Kim IS, Kim SJ, Song YM, Song JK, Zhang YL, Lee TH, Cho TH, Hwang SJ. Biphasic electric current stimulates proliferation and induces VEGF production in osteoblasts. BBA Mol Cell Res. 2006;1769:907–16.Google Scholar