Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Orthopedic Reviews logoLink to Orthopedic Reviews
. 2023 Dec 17;15:90618. doi: 10.52965/001c.90618

Utilization of Antibiotic Bone Cement in Spine Surgery: Pearls, Techniques, and Case Review

Eren O Kuris 1, Camilo Osorio 1, George M Anderson 2, John Andrew Younghein 1, Christopher L McDonald 1, Alan H Daniels 1
PMCID: PMC10727979  PMID: 38116585

Abstract

Vertebral osteomyelitis (VO) encompasses a spectrum of spinal infections ranging from isolated mild vertebral osteomyelitis to severe diffuse infection with associated epidural abscess and fracture. Although patients can often be treated with an initial course of intravenous antibiotics, surgery is sometimes required in patients with sepsis, spinal instability, neurological compromise, or failed medical treatment. Antibiotic bone cement (ABC) has been widely used in orthopedic extremity surgery for more than 150 years, both for prophylaxis and treatment of bacterial infection. However, relatively little literature exists regarding its utilization in spine surgery. This article describes ABC utilization in orthopedic surgery and explains the technique of ABC utilization in spine surgery. Surgeons can choose from multiple premixed ABCs with variable viscosities, setting times, and antibiotics or can mix in antibiotics to bone cements themselves. ABC can be used to fill large defects in the vertebral body or disc space or in some cases to coat instrumentation. Surgeons should be wary of complications such as ABC extravasation as well as an increased difficulty with revision. With a thorough understanding of the properties of the cement and the methods of delivery, ABC is a powerful adjunct in the treatment of spinal infections.

Keywords: Antibiotic Cement, Surgical Site Infection, Vertebral Osteomyelitis

1. Introduction

Vertebral osteomyelitis (VO), also known as spondylodiscitis, refers to a spectrum of spinal infections ranging from isolated vertebral osteomyelitis and/or discitis to diffuse infection with associated epidural abscess.1 It can present in a number of ways, from an isolated lesion in a neurologically intact patient to a critically ill patient in septic shock with spinal instability and/or neurological compromise.2,3

Treatment is often guided by the status of the patient at the time of clinical presentation. Patients with a known organism who are clinically stable without evidence of spinal instability can often be treated with an initial course of antimicrobial therapy. Surgery is often required in patients with sepsis, spinal instability, neurological compromise, (such as weakness, paralysis, or bowel/bladder dysfunction), or in chronic cases where medical treatment has previously failed.4,5

The appropriate surgical treatment varies based on the nature of the infection and the condition of the patient. Lesions that are otherwise stable may sometimes require procedural biopsy of the inflammatory tissue in question to help guide antibiotic therapy. Patients without instability who have failed medical treatment and require debridement or decompression of the neural elements may be treated with isolated decompression and/or debridement alone.6 If the infection has progressed to the point at which it disrupts the mechanical stability of the spine, or if obtaining adequate decompression warrants a degree of bony resection that destabilizes the spine, spinal fusion may be required.7,8

While the role of systemic antibiotic therapy is well established in the treatment of VO, there is not a standardized method of local antibiotic delivery. A variety of techniques are utilized in orthopaedic surgery for local antibiotic delivery, including application of local antibiotic powder to the wound, use of antibiotic beads, and the use of antibiotic bone cement.9

Although antibiotic bone cement (ABC) is commonly utilized in other orthopedic subspecialties such as adult reconstruction/joint arthroplasty, the routine use of ABC in spine surgery is not well established. The purpose of this manuscript is to review the principles and techniques associated with the use of ABC in orthopaedic surgery and to broaden its applications to spine surgery. This will be illustrated with several case examples.

2. Established Clinical Uses of Antibiotic Cement in Orthopaedic Surgery

Bone cement has been routinely used in orthopaedic surgery since 1870, when Themistocles Gluck, a German surgeon, pioneered its use for the fixation of a total knee prosthesis.10 Early bone cement consisted primarily of plaster and colophony. In 1960, Sir John Charnley introduced polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), which has become the gold standard for cemented fixation in total joint arthroplasty.11 PMMA acts as a space-filler to ensure a close mechanical interlock between the bone and the prosthesis.10 Buchholz et al. further expanded the use of bone cement by demonstrating that it was capable of releasing substances like antibiotics and copper ions from its surface.12 Since this discovery, PMMA cement impregnated with antibiotics has been a key component in the treatment of prosthetic joint infections through local antibiotic delivery. Over the years, the use of ABC has expanded, and many surgeons utilize antibiotic cement for infection prophylaxis in both primary and revision joint replacements.

Bone cement can also address segmental bone defects in orthopedic trauma surgery. Masquelet et al. describe a technique that combines induced membrane formation technology with bone grafting for the management of long (> 5 cm) diaphyseal defects in poorly vascularized, infected, and/or irradiated sites (Figure 1). The induced membrane’s unique biological and structural properties act as an envelope that preserves and protects the bone graft and aids in the revascularization process. The Masquelet technique is a two-stage process which may also be applicable to spine surgery. The first stage involves extensive debridement of devitalized tissue with osseous stabilization across the bone graft. The osseous void is filled with a PMMA cement spacer, often loaded with antibiotics, which prevents soft tissue invasion of the defect. The second stage is performed after 6-8 weeks or when the tissue is healthy. At this point, the biomembrane around the spacer is incised and the spacer is removed and replaced with bone graft around the induced membrane to allow for osseous integration across the bone defect.13,14

Figure 1. Anterior posterior and lateral radiographs of comminuted right tibia shaft fracture and fibula shaft fracture, status post open reduction and internal fixation and intramedullary nailing with a large osseous defect filled with antibiotic cement using the Masquelet Technique.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Arrows indicate placement of antibiotic cement.

Antibiotic cement has also been used in the form of antibiotic cement beads. After setting, antibiotic beads can be introduced to a surgical site where they provide local wound control through antibiotic elution. Recent studies have demonstrated this technique to be effective in treating spinal surgical site infections.15,16

3. Efficacy & Safety

Antibiotic-loaded cement spacers play a role in both the prevention and treatment of extremity infections. A systemic review revealed that prophylactic use of ABC in hip and knee replacements led to a 20 to 84% risk reduction of prosthetic joint infections (PJI).17 Leong et al. utilized the National Joint Registry for England to reveal that patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty with ABC had lower rates of revision for PJI.18 Wang et al. performed a meta-analysis and discovered that prophylactic utilization of ABC reduced deep infection rates but not superficial infection rates after primary arthroplasty.19

In a study of 27 patients with open fractures and long segmental defects, the Masquelet technique with antibiotic cement led to zero long term residual infections.20

Additionally, Masquelet retrospectively reviewed 18 of his patients that underwent his induced membrane technique with a follow-up of 10-22 years. There were no cases of recurrent infection in the reconstruction zone in any of the patients.21

Safety concerns have been raised regarding the use of ABC. These concerns include local toxicity, monomethyl methacrylate (MMA) vapor exposure, allergic response, structural compromise, inhibition of bone formation, and the development of drug-resistant bacteria.22–32 However, numerous studies confirm that ABC is safe and effective in the majority of patients.19,33–36

4. Cement Properties and Technique in Spine Surgery

Cement utilized in extremity surgery primarily consists of PMMA. PMMA is an acrylic polymer formed by mixing liquid MMA monomer and a powdered MMA-styrene co-polymer.37 The liquid monomer polymerizes around the powdered particles to form the hardened cement through an exothermic reaction.10 (Figure 2) PMMA often contains a radio-opacifier such as barium sulfate which allows for radiographic visualization of the cement.37

Figure 2. PMMA Chemical Structure and Polymerization.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Several different commercial PMMA products are available that have distinct qualities. (Table 1)

Table 1. Antibiotic choice, mix, spectrum, elution, resistant organisms, and complications25,37–55.

Antibiotic Family Antibiotic AB cement mix Spectrum Elution duration Resistant organism Complications References
Carbapenems Meropenem Simplex P bone cement with 5 % meropenem Staphylococcus aureus P. aeruginosa, E. coli and K. pneumoniae > least 3 weeks Enterococcus Faecalis and Staphylococcus aureus MRSA were resistant to 5-10% after 7 days. Not reported Samuel, 201237
Galvez-Lopez, 201438
Simplex P bone cement with 10 % meropenem 27 days
Glycopeptides Vancomycin 1 g AB in 40g PMMA antibacterial effects did not last more than 2 days, regardless of the test organism or the antibiotic loaded 2 days MSSA, MRSA and VISA after 2 days possible Acute Kidney Injury at high doses Galvez-Lopez, 201438
Chang, 201139 Edelstein, 201840
3g AB in 40g Not reported Not reported Not reported
4 g AB in 40g PMMA MSSA & MRSA 21d/ VISA 5d 5-21 days VISA after day 5
8 g AB in 40g PMMA MSSA, MRSA, and VISA 60 days none
Teicoplanin 1 g AB in 40g PMMA antibacterial effects did not last more than 2 days, regardless of the test organism or the antibiotic loaded 2 days MSSA, MRSA and VISA after 2 days Not reported
4 g AB in 40g PMMA MSSA & MRSA (40d) VISA 21d 21-40 days VISA after day 21
8 g AB in 40g PMMA MSSA, MRSA, and VISA 60 days none
Licopeptides Daptomycin 1 g AB in 40g PMMA antibacterial effects didn’t last more than 2 days, regardless of the test organism or the antibiotic loaded 2 days MSSA, MRSA and VISA after 2 days Not reported
4 g AB in 40g PMMA MSSA & MRSA (40d)/ VISA 14d 14-40 days VISA after day 14
8 g AB in 40g PMMA MSSA, MRSA, and VISA 60 days none
Aminoglycosides Amikacin 1g AB in 40g PMMA Gram negative bacilli 2 days P. aeruginosa, K. pneumoniae, E. coli, Serratia marcescens, Proteus vulgaris nephrotoxicity Kuechle, 199141
Tai, 202142
Phillips, 200743
4.8g AB in 40g in PMMA Not reported
5g AB in 40 g PMMA >30 days
Tobramycin 1g AB in 40g in Simplex P Gram negative bacilli, MSSA, mycobacteria detected concentration: 2.8 mg/L at 118 days P. aeruginosa in vitro concentrations of 10,000 µg/mL caused death of osteoblast like cells, possible Acute Kidney Injury at high doses Edelstein, 201840
Jiranek, 200644
Shahpari, 202045
Slane, 201846
Meeker, 201947
1.2g AB in PMMA 2 days
3g AB in 40g Not reported
4.8g AB in 40g detected concentration: 9.12 mg/L at 118 days
9.6g AB in 40g PMMA Not reported
Gentamicin 0.5g AB in 40 g PMMA Gram negative bacilli >6 weeks Enterobacteriaceae, P. Aeruginosa possible Acute Kidney Injury at high doses Galvez-Lopez, 201438
Edelstein, 201840
Nagy, 202148
Liawrungrueang, 202149
2g AB in 40 g PMMA 6 weeks
4g AB in 40g PMMA detected concentration: 4mg/L at 30 days
4.8g AB in 40g PMMA Not reported
8g in 40g PMMA detected concentration: 6mg/L at 30 days
12.5g AB in 40g PMMA
Cephalosporins Cefazolin 1g AB in 40g Gram-positive cocci, Gram negative cocci, Proteus, E. coli, K. pneumoniae >30 days Mycoplasma, Chlamydia neurotoxicity Galvez-Lopez, 201438
Phillips, 200743
Paz, 201550
4g AB in 40g >30 days
7g AB in 40g PMMA >30 days
8g AB in 40g >30 days
Cefotaxime 1g AB in 40g Gram negative bacilli, Enterobacteriaceae, Neisseria spp., H. influenzae, MSSA, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Not reported Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Escherichia coli and Enterobacter spp rare neurotoxicity Galvez-Lopez, 201438
4g AB in 40g 28 days
8g AB in 40g 1mg/L at 30 days
Cefuroxime 1.5g AB in 40g Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, and Bacteroides spp Not reported Serratia, Proteus, Bacteroides fragilis neurotoxicity Galvez-Lopez, 201438
3g AB in 40g
Antipseudomonal Piperacillin/ Tazobactam 1g AB in 40g Pseudomonas detected concentration: .4 mg/L at 2 days Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae possible drug fever Park, 201125
Chang, 201139
Abdelraouf, 201951
Polymyxins Colistin 0.24g AB in 40g Gram-negative multi drug resistant organisms Not reported Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Klebsiella neurotoxicity and nephrotoxicity Loho, 201552
Aghapour, 201953
Macrolides Erythromycin 2.2 AB in 40 g PMMA Streptococcus pneumoniae, Streptococcus pyogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Listeria monocytogenes, Corynebacterium minutissum, Corynebacterium diphtheria, Legionella pneumophila, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Haemophilus influenzae, Bordetella pertussis, Chlamydia trachomatis, Entamoeba histolytica, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Treponema pallidum, Ureaplasma urealyticum 42 days Group A and Group B Streptococcus Not reported Oungeun, 201954
Desjardins, 200455
Open in a new tab

PMMA: polymethyl methacrylate, MSSA: methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, MRSA: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, VISA: Vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus

During the polymerization process, surgeons can add antibiotic powder, which allows for local antibiotic delivery.38

Bone cement has been used widely in spine surgery to augment fixation in osteoporotic bone.39,40 Mechanically, bone cement increases pedicle screw fixation pullout strength.41 Previous studies have shown some decrease in structural integrity of bone cement when augmented with antibiotics.28–30 Although these structural concerns are valid, ABC is not primarily used in the spine for structural support–rather it is a vehicle for antibiotic delivery. In this light, the addition of cement, irrespective of antibiotic impregnation, would result in a net improvement in structural support. The relatively diminished integrity of antibiotic-treated cement compared to cement without antibiotics is more of a concern in cases in which cement is primarily used for structural stability, such as in a load-bearing joint like the hip or knee.

Choice of antibiotic is based on the identified or suspected organism. (Table 1)

5. Technique For Utilization

Different PMMA products and antibiotic concentrations can affect cure time and often require surgeon familiarity with the different cement products and antibiotics to accurately predict curing.

5.1. Curing

The curing of ABC is divided in to 4 phases: 1) mixing; 2) handling (sticky); 3) working (doughy); 4) hardening.

During the mixing period, which generally takes about one minute, the liquid monomer is mixed with the powder and antibiotics. This can be done either by hand or with the assistance of vacuum suction devices.38 The handling period is the time it takes for the compound to reach a consistency state where it is doughy enough to be delivered to the tissues for its intended state, known as the working state. The hardening period is the time it takes for the cement to fully harden after delivery, or until it can no longer be delivered.10

Bone cement is heat sensitive, and variations in room or tissue temperature or humidity can affect the characteristics and setting time of the cement.56,57 Lower temperatures can increase the handling, working, and hardening periods, while higher temperatures can conversely decrease these phases.58 Manual handling of the cement can also accelerate the curing process.38 Although exact requirements vary from product to product, in general, ABC should be utilized at a temperature of 73 degrees F (23 degrees C).59

5.2. Application of cement

Cement can be delivered to the spine in various ways depending on the intended usage. It can be delivered manually to the spine to fill large defects in the vertebral body or disc space.60,61 Some surgeons have also described coating the instrumentation constructs with cement to minimize the risk of local infection and biofilm formation.62,63

Multiple delivery methods exist to allow for direct delivery to the vertebral body. For instance, the following case examples describe treatment of VO by augmenting pedicle screws with ABC in the local environment. One method to do this is to inject cement directly into the vertebral body after cannulating the pedicle screw tracts, in a manner similar to vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. This is immediately followed by placement of the pedicle screws into the cemented path before the cement fully hardens. Several manufacturers also make fenestrated pedicle screws that allow for direct delivery of cement to the vertebral body through the cannulated screw. (Figure 3) This can allow for efficient cement augmentation across multiple vertebral bodies. Surgeons should closely scrutinize imaging during this process to watch for cement extravasation.

Figure 3. Fenestrated screw with poly-axial head. Stryker. Kalamazoo, MI.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

5.3. Complications of Cement Delivery

Although antibiotic cement may be a powerful resource in the treatment of spine infections, usage of ABC may be associated with several complications and should be carefully planned and closely scrutinized. Surgeons should be mindful of the potential for cement extravasation, especially when the bone is weakened secondary to infection, tumor, or fracture. Cement can extravasate posteriorly into the canal, which can cause emergent neurological deficits (Figure 4), can extravasate anteriorly to the vertebral body and damage visceral structures, and in some cases has the propensity to enter the vasculature, which can lead to cement embolization (Figure 5).

Figure 4. Sagittal plane view of cement extravasation into spinal canal.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Figure 5. Sagittal & coronal plane views from a patient suffering a pulmonary embolism secondary to Cement extravasation.

Figure 5.

Open in a new tab

Given the heat generated during the exothermic curing process, damage to neural structures can occur due to thermal injury.64,65 This is of particular concern in cases of extravasation where cement could come into direct contact with sensitive neurovascular structures

Of note, cement can make revision cases more difficult. Cemented screws that have failed can compromise bone stock and make it difficult to achieve revision transpedicular fixation, often warranting an extension of prior surgical constructs. Moreover, if an infected vertebral body is treated with ABC and then progresses to the point of requiring further surgery, the subsequent case could be substantially more challenging. An example of this is in the setting of a cemented vertebral body, which might require corpectomy.

5.4. Case Example

A 57-year-old female was initially admitted to an outside facility and found to have L5-S1 osteodiscitis with a ventral epidural phlegmon and blood cultures positive for Methicillin-Sensitive Staph Aureus. She was treated for 6 weeks with Oxacillin with persistent low back pain, as well as persistently elevated inflammatory markers. Repeat imaging revealed progression of her osteodiscitis at the lumbosacral junction with development of spondylolisthesis (Figure 6). Given her failure to respond to medical treatment, she was treated with surgical decompression, debridement of osteodiscitis, and stabilization from L5 to the pelvis with ABC augmentation of her pedicle screw fixation. Postoperatively, she remained on antibiotics for 6 weeks with gradual improvement in her back pain and normalization of her inflammatory markers.

Figure 6. Sagittal T2 sequence MRI, and AP, and Lateral radiographs of Lumbar spine, demonstrating successful debridement and stabilization of lumbosacral osteodiscitis supplemented with ABC.

Figure 6.

Open in a new tab

6. Conclusion

Antibiotic-loaded bone cement has been widely used in orthopedic surgery for more than 150 years, both for prophylaxis and treatment of bacterial infection. Efficacious results have been observed in both settings.66 However, little literature exists regarding the use of ABC in the field of spine surgery. With a thorough understanding of the properties of the cement and the methods of delivery, ABC is a useful adjunct in the treatment of spinal infections.

Correspondence

Alan H. Daniels, MD

Department of Orthopedic Surgery

Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University

Providence, RI 02906

Phone: 401-330-1420

Fax: 401-270-3378

Email: alandanielsmd@gmail.com

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, EO, CO, GA, AD; methodology, EO, CO, GA; software, CO, GA; validation, EO, JAY, AD; formal analysis, CM; investigation, CO, GA, CM; resources, CM, JAY; data curation, GA, CM; writing—original draft preparation, EO, CO, GA, CM writing—review and editing, EO, CO, GA, CM, JAY, AD; visualization, CO, CM, JAY; supervision, EO, AD; project administration, AD; funding acquisition, AD. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript

Declaration of interest

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Alan H. Daniels receives consulting fees from Stryker, Orthofix, Spineart, and EOS, research support from Southern Spine, and Fellowship support from Orthofix.

Eren O. Kuris receives consulting fees from Spineart and Seaspine

GA, CO, and CM report no disclosures.

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

We want to thank Stryker/K2M for providing and allowing the usage of the picture of the fenestrated screw.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding

References

  1. Vertebral osteomyelitis in adults: an update. Nickerson Emma K., Sinha Rohitashwa. Feb 12;2016 British Medical Bulletin. 117(1):121–138. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldw003. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldw003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Vertebral Osteomyelitis: Long-Term Outcome for 253 Patients from 7 Cleveland-Area Hospitals. McHenry Martin C., Easley Kirk A., Locker Geri A. May 15;2002 Clinical Infectious Diseases. 34(10):1342–1350. doi: 10.1086/340102. doi: 10.1086/340102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Pyogenic Vertebral Osteomyelitis: A Systematic Review of Clinical Characteristics. Mylona E., Samarkos M., Kakalou E., Fanourgiakis P., Skoutelis A. Aug;2009 Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism. 39(1):10–17. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2008.03.002. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2008.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. 2015 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Native Vertebral Osteomyelitis in Adultsa. Berbari Elie F., Kanj Souha S., Kowalski Todd J., Darouiche Rabih O., Widmer Andreas F., Schmitt Steven K., Hendershot Edward F., Holtom Paul D., Huddleston Paul M. III, Petermann Gregory W., Osmon Douglas R. Jul 29;2015 Clinical Infectious Diseases. 61(6):e26–e46. doi: 10.1093/cid/civ482. doi: 10.1093/cid/civ482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Characteristics of and risk factors for severe neurological deficit in patients with pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis: A case–control study. Lemaignen Adrien, Ghout Idir, Dinh Aurélien, Gras Guillaume, Fantin Bruno, Zarrouk Virginie, Carlier Robert, Loret Jean-Edouard, Denes Eric, Greder Alix, Lescure François-Xavier, Boutoille David, Tattevin Pierre, Issartel Bertrand, Cottier Jean-Philippe, Bernard Louis. May;2017 Medicine. 96(21):e6387. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000006387. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000006387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Therapeutic Outcomes of Hematogenous Vertebral Osteomyelitis With Instrumented Surgery. Park Ki-Ho, Cho Oh-Hyun, Lee Yu-Mi, Moon Chisook, Park Seong Yeon, Moon Song Mi, Lee Jung Hee, Park Ji Seon, Ryu Kyung Nam, Kim Sung-Han, Lee Sang-Oh, Choi Sang-Ho, Lee Mi Suk, Kim Yang Soo, Woo Jun Hee, Bae In-Gyu. Feb 6;2015 Clinical Infectious Diseases. 60(9):1330–1338. doi: 10.1093/cid/civ066. doi: 10.1093/cid/civ066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Surgical treatment of pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis with spinal instrumentation. Chen Wei-Hua, Jiang Lei-Sheng, Dai Li-Yang. 2007European Spine Journal. 16(9):1307–1316. doi: 10.1007/s00586-006-0251-4. doi: 10.1007/s00586-006-0251-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Treatment of Pyogenic Vertebral Osteomyelitis With Anterior Debridement and Fusion Followed by Delayed Posterior Spinal Fusion. Dimar John R., Carreon Leah Y., Glassman Steven D., Campbell Mitchell J., Hartman Michael J., Johnson John R. Feb;2004 Spine. 29(3):326–332. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000109410.46538.74. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000109410.46538.74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Intrawound Application of Vancomycin for Prophylaxis in Instrumented Thoracolumbar Fusions: Efficacy, Drug Levels, and Patient Outcomes. Sweet Fred A., Roh Michael, Sliva Christopher. Nov;2011 Spine. 36(24):2084–2088. doi: 10.1097/brs.0b013e3181ff2cb1. doi: 10.1097/brs.0b013e3181ff2cb1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bone cement. Vaishya Raju, Chauhan Mayank, Vaish Abhishek. Dec;2013 Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma. 4(4):157–163. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2013.11.005. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2013.11.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. PMMA-Based Bone Cements and the Problem of Joint Arthroplasty Infections: Status and New Perspectives. Bistolfi, Ferracini, Albanese, Vernè, Miola Dec 2;2019 Materials. 12(23):4002. doi: 10.3390/ma12234002. doi: 10.3390/ma12234002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. [Depot effects of various antibiotics mixed with Palacos resins] Buchholz H. W., Engelbrecht H. Nov;1970 Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift Fur Alle Gebiete Der Operativen Medizen. 41(11):511–515. PMID: 5487941. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. [Reconstruction of the long bones by the induced membrane and spongy autograft] Masquelet A. C., Fitoussi F., Begue T., Muller G. P. Jun;2000 Annales De Chirurgie Plastique Et Esthetique. 45(3):346–353. PMID: 10929461. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bone Repair Using the Masquelet Technique. Masquelet Alain, Kanakaris Nikolaos K., Obert Laurent, Stafford Paul, Giannoudis Peter V. Jun 5;2019 Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 101(11):1024–1036. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.18.00842. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.18.00842. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Antibiotic-loaded calcium sulfate beads in spinal surgery for patients with spondylodiscitis: a clinical retrospective study. Tang Xiaojie, Li Jianyi, Wang Chunxiao, Liu Fang, Guo Jianwei, Tan Jiangwei, Song Qinyong, Cao Haifei, Zhang Yao. Mar 19;2022 BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 23(1):270. doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05230-y. doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05230-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Use of antibiotic-impregnated beads in the treatment of lumbosacral surgical site infection: A retrospective case series. Viswanathan Vibhu Krishnan, Shetty Ajoy Prasad, Kanna Rishi Mukesh, Rajasekaran S. Sep;2022 Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma. 32:101984. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2022.101984. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2022.101984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Antibiotic containing bone cement in prevention of hip and knee prosthetic joint infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sebastian Sujeesh, Liu Yang, Christensen Robin, Raina Deepak Bushan, Tägil Magnus, Lidgren Lars. Jul;2020 Journal of Orthopaedic Translation. 23:53–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2020.04.005. doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2020.04.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Is the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement associated with a lower risk of revision after primary total hip arthroplasty?: a study of 418,857 total hip arthroplasties in the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Leong Justin W., Cook Michael J., O’Neill Terence W., Board Timothy N. Aug;2020 The Bone & Joint Journal. 102-B(8):997–1002. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.102b8.bjj-2020-0120.r1. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.102b8.bjj-2020-0120.r1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. A systematic review and meta-analysis of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement use in primary total hip or knee arthroplasty. Wang Jiaxing, Zhu Chen, Cheng Tao, Peng Xiaochun, Zhang Wen, Qin Hui, Zhang Xianlong. Dec 12;2013 PloS One. 8(12):e82745. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082745. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082745. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Antibiotic cement spacer and induced membrane bone grafting in open fractures with bone loss: A case series. Kasha Srinivas, Rathore Sameer Singh, Kumar Hemanth. Apr;2019 Indian Journal of Orthopaedics. 53(2):237–245. doi: 10.4103/ortho.ijortho_110_17. doi: 10.4103/ortho.ijortho_110_17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Very long-term results of post-traumatic bone defect reconstruction by the induced membrane technique. Masquelet Alain C., Kishi Taka, Benko Pierre E. Feb;2019 Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 105(1):159–166. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.11.012. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.11.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gentamicin negatively influenced osteogenic function in vitro. Ince Akif, Schütze Norbert, Karl Nadja, Löhr Jochen F., Eulert Jochen. 2007International Orthopaedics. 31(2):223–228. doi: 10.1007/s00264-006-0144-5. doi: 10.1007/s00264-006-0144-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Chronic biological effects of methyl methacrylate vapor. Tansy Martin F., Hohenleitner Frank J., Landin Wendell E., Kendall Frank M. Feb;1980 Environmental Research. 21(1):108–116. doi: 10.1016/0013-9351(80)90013-4. doi: 10.1016/0013-9351(80)90013-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Embryotoxicity and fetotoxicity from maternal inhalation of methyl methacrylate monomer in rats. Nicholas Charles A., Lawrence W.H., Autian John. Sep;1979 Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 50(3):451–458. doi: 10.1016/0041-008x(79)90398-3. doi: 10.1016/0041-008x(79)90398-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Proportionate Cancer Mortality in Methyl Methacrylate-Exposed Orthopedic Surgeons Compared to General Surgeons. Diaz James Henry. Jan 29;2011 Journal of Medical Toxicology. 7(2):125–132. doi: 10.1007/s13181-011-0134-x. doi: 10.1007/s13181-011-0134-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. High frequency of contact allergy to implant and bone cement components, in particular gentamicin, in cemented arthroplasty with complications: usefulness of late patch test reading: GENTAMICIN ALLERGY IN COMPLICATED ARTHROPLASTY? Thomas Benjamin, Kulichova Daniela, Wolf Ronald, Summer Burkhard, Mahler Vera, Thomas Peter. Aug 28;2015 Contact Dermatitis. 73(6):343–349. doi: 10.1111/cod.12465. doi: 10.1111/cod.12465. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Drug Fever Due to Piperacillin/Tazobactam Loaded into Bone Cement. Park Hyun Bum, Choi Joon Seok, Park Sang Hoon, Kee Won Ju, Koh Young-Il. 2011Journal of Korean Medical Science. 26(2):301. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2011.26.2.301. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2011.26.2.301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Incorporation of large amounts of gentamicin sulphate into acrylic bone cement: effect on handling and mechanical properties, antibiotic release, and biofilm formation. Dunne N J, Hill J, McAfee P, Kirkpatrick R, Patrick S, Tunney M. Mar 1;2008 Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine. 222(3):355–365. doi: 10.1243/09544119jeim355. doi: 10.1243/09544119jeim355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Mechanical properties of bone cements containing large doses of antibiotic powders. Lautenschlager E. P., Jacobs J. J., Marshall G. W., Meyer P. R., Jr. Nov;1976 Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. 10(6):929–938. doi: 10.1002/jbm.820100610. doi: 10.1002/jbm.820100610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Addition of hand-blended generic tobramycin in bone cement: effect on mechanical strength. DeLuise Michael, Scott Christopher P. Dec;2004 Orthopedics. 27(12):1289–1291. doi: 10.3928/0147-7447-20041201-19. doi: 10.3928/0147-7447-20041201-19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Antibiotic resistance of coagulase-negative staphylococci in an orthopaedic department. Sanzén Lennart, Walder Mats. Aug;1988 Journal of Hospital Infection. 12(2):103–108. doi: 10.1016/0195-6701(88)90132-6. doi: 10.1016/0195-6701(88)90132-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Development of resistant strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis on gentamicin-loaded bone cement in vivo. Thornes B., Murray P., Bouchier-Hayes D. Jul;2002 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume. 84-B(5):758–760. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.84b5.0840758. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.84b5.0840758. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Efficacy of antibiotic-impregnated cement in total hip replacement. Parvizi Javad, Saleh Khaled J, Ragland Phillip S, Pour Aidin Eslam, Mont Michael A. Jan;2008 Acta Orthopaedica. 79(3):335–341. doi: 10.1080/17453670710015229. doi: 10.1080/17453670710015229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Antibiotic prophylaxis in total hip arthroplasty: effects of antibiotic prophylaxis systemically and in bone cement on the revision rate of 22,170 primary hip replacements followed 0-14 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Engesæter Lars, Lie Stein Atle, Espehaug Birgitte, Furnes Ove, Vollset Stein Emil, Havelin Leif Ivar. Jan;2003 Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica. 74(6):644–651. doi: 10.1080/00016470310018135. doi: 10.1080/00016470310018135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Antibiotic-Impregnated Cement Spacers for the Treatment of Infection Associated with Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty. Cui Quanjun, Mihalko William M., Shields John S., Ries Michael, Saleh Khaled J. Apr;2007 The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 89(4):871–882. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.e.01070. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.e.01070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Systemic antibiotics and gentamicin-containing bone cement in the prophylaxis of postoperative infections in total hip arthroplasty. Josefsson G., Lindberg L., Wiklander B. Sep;1981 Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 159:194–200. doi: 10.1097/00003086-198109000-00027. doi: 10.1097/00003086-198109000-00027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Bone Cement in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty. Monzón René A., Coury John G., Disse Gregory D., Lum Zachary C. Dec;2019 JBJS Reviews. 7(12):e6–e6. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.rvw.19.00031. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.rvw.19.00031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Antibiotic-Loaded Polymethylmethacrylate Beads and Spacers in Treatment of Orthopedic Infections and the Role of Biofilm Formation. van Vugt Tom A. G., Arts Jacobus J., Geurts Jan A. P. Jul 25;2019 Frontiers in Microbiology. 10:1626. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01626. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01626. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Effect of Fenestrated Pedicle Screws with Cement Augmentation in Osteoporotic Patients Undergoing Spinal Fusion. Saadeh Yamaan S., Swong Kevin N., Yee Timothy J., Strong Michael J., Kashlan Osama N., Szerlip Nicholas J., Oppenlander Mark E., Park Paul. Nov;2020 World Neurosurgery. 143:e351–e361. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.07.154. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.07.154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Surgical Trend Analysis for Use of Cement Augmented Pedicle Screws in Osteoporosis of Spine: A Systematic Review (2000-2017) Singh Vishwajeet, Mahajan Rajat, Das Kalidutta, Chhabra Harvinder Singh, Rustagi Tarush. 2019Global Spine Journal. 9(7):783–795. doi: 10.1177/2192568218801570. doi: 10.1177/2192568218801570. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. The biomechanics of pedicle screw augmentation with cement. Elder Benjamin D., Lo Sheng-Fu L., Holmes Christina, Goodwin Courtney R., Kosztowski Thomas A., Lina Ioan A., Locke John E., Witham Timothy F. Jun;2015 The Spine Journal. 15(6):1432–1445. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.03.016. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.03.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. In vitro study of elution kinetics and bio-activity of meropenem-loaded acrylic bone cement. Samuel Sumant, Mathew Binu S., Veeraraghavan Balaji, Fleming Denise H., Chittaranjan Samuel B., Prakash John A. J. Mar 30;2012 Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology. 13(3):131–136. doi: 10.1007/s10195-012-0191-1. doi: 10.1007/s10195-012-0191-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Elution kinetics, antimicrobial activity, and mechanical properties of 11 different antibiotic loaded acrylic bone cement. Gálvez-López Ruben, Peña-Monje Alejandro, Antelo-Lorenzo Ramón, Guardia-Olmedo Juan, Moliz Juan, Hernández-Quero José, Parra-Ruiz Jorge. Jan;2014 Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease. 78(1):70–74. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2013.09.014. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2013.09.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. In Vitro Activities of Daptomycin-, Vancomycin-, and Teicoplanin-Loaded Polymethylmethacrylate against Methicillin-Susceptible, Methicillin-Resistant, and Vancomycin-Intermediate Strains of Staphylococcus aureus. Chang Yuhan, Chen Wen-Chien, Hsieh Pang-Hsin, Chen Dave W., Lee Mel S., Shih Hsin-Nung, Ueng Steve W. N. Dec;2011 Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 55(12):5480–5484. doi: 10.1128/aac.05312-11. doi: 10.1128/aac.05312-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Nephrotoxicity After the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection With Antibiotic-Loaded Cement Spacers. Edelstein Adam I., Okroj Kamil T., Rogers Thea, Della Valle Craig J., Sporer Scott M. Jul;2018 The Journal of Arthroplasty. 33(7):2225–2229. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.012. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Elution of vancomycin, daptomycin, and amikacin from acrylic bone cement. Kuechle DAVID K., Landon GLENN C., Musher DANIEL M., Noble PHILIP C. Mar;1991 Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. (264):302–8. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199103000-00038. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199103000-00038. [DOI] [PubMed]
  47. Safety and tolerability of liquid amikacin in antibiotic-loaded bone cement – a case series. Tai Don Bambino Geno, Brinkman Nathan J., Abu Saleh Omar, Osmon Douglas R., Abdel Matthew P., Rivera Christina G. Apr 26;2021 Journal of Bone and Joint Infection. 6(5):147–150. doi: 10.5194/jbji-6-147-2021. doi: 10.5194/jbji-6-147-2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. In Vitro Elution Studies of Amikacin and Cefazolin from Polymethylmethacrylate. Phillips Heidi, Boothe Dawn M., Shofer Frances, Davidson Jeffrey S., Bennett R. Avery. Apr;2007 Veterinary Surgery. 36(3):272–278. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950x.2007.00262.x. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950x.2007.00262.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Antibiotic-loaded bone cement for infection prophylaxis in total joint replacement. Jiranek William A., Hanssen Arlen D., Greenwald A. Seth. Nov;2006 The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 88(11):2487–2500. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.e.01126. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.e.01126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. The use of antibiotic impregnated cement spacers in the treatment of infected total joint replacement: challenges and achievements. Shahpari Omid, Elahpour nafiseh, Mousavian Alireza, Malahias Michael-Alexander, Ebrahimzadeh Mohammad Hosein, Moradi PhD Ali. Nov;2019 The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery. (Online First) doi: 10.22038/abjs.2019.42018.2141. doi: 10.22038/abjs.2019.42018.2141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  51. Antibiotic elution from acrylic bone cement loaded with high doses of tobramycin and vancomycin: ANTIBIOTIC ELUTION FROM ACRYLIC BONE CEMENT. Slane Joshua, Gietman Bradley, Squire Matthew. Sep 20;2017 Journal of Orthopaedic Research. 36(4):1078–1085. doi: 10.1002/jor.23722. doi: 10.1002/jor.23722. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Comparative Study of Antibiotic Elution Profiles From Alternative Formulations of Polymethylmethacrylate Bone Cement. Meeker Daniel G., Cooper Kasa B., Renard Regis L., Mears Simon C., Smeltzer Mark S., Barnes C. Lowry. Jul;2019 The Journal of Arthroplasty. 34(7):1458–1461. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.03.008. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.03.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. In vitro elution characteristics of gentamicin- and teicoplanin-loaded CMW1 and Palacos R bone cement. Nagy M., Jakaraddi C., Neal T., Jackson R., Navin A., Davidson J.S., Santini A.J.A. May;2021 Journal of Orthopaedics. 25:75–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2021.03.024. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2021.03.024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. In vitro elution characteristics of gentamicin-impregnated Polymethylmethacrylate: premixed with a second powder vs. liquid Lyophilization. Liawrungrueang Wongthawat, Ungphaiboon Suwipa, Jitsurong Arnurai, Ingviya Natnicha, Tangtrakulwanich Boonsin, Yuenyongviwat Varah. Jan 4;2021 BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 22(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03923-w. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03923-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Evaluation of Elution and Mechanical Properties of High-Dose Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement: Comparative “In Vitro” Study of the Influence of Vancomycin and Cefazolin. Paz Eva, Sanz-Ruiz Pablo, Abenojar Juana, Vaquero-Martín Javier, Forriol Francisco, Del Real Juan Carlos. Aug;2015 The Journal of Arthroplasty. 30(8):1423–1429. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.02.040. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.02.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Altering polymerization temperature of antibiotic-laden cement can increase porosity and subsequent antibiotic elution. Sundblad Jeffrey, Nixon Mary, Jackson Nancy, Vaidya Rahul, Markel David. Sep 15;2018 International Orthopaedics. 42(11):2627–2632. doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-4135-0. doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-4135-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Thermal characterization of PMMA-based bone cement curing. Li Chaodi, Mason James, Yakimicki Don. Jan;2004 Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine. 15(1):85–89. doi: 10.1023/b:jmsm.0000010101.45352.d1. doi: 10.1023/b:jmsm.0000010101.45352.d1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Curing characteristics of acrylic bone cement. Dunne N. J., Orr J. F. 2002Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine. 13(1):17–22. doi: 10.1023/a:1013670132001. doi: 10.1023/a:1013670132001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Quantitative analysis of perioperative complication rates in balloon kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty (meta-analysis) Dec 11;2006 Medtronic Spine LLC. 2006 [Google Scholar]
  60. Deep surgical site infection after posterior instrumented fusion for rheumatoid upper cervical subluxation treated with antibiotic-loaded bone cement: Three case reports. Ogihara Satoshi, Murase Shuhei, Oguchi Fumihiko, Saita Kazuo. Jun 26;2020 Medicine. 99(26):e20892. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000020892. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000020892. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Efficacy of Target Drug Delivery and Dead Space Reduction Using Antibiotic-loaded Bone Cement for the Treatment of Complex Spinal Infection. Masuda Soichiro, Fujibayashi Shunsuke, Otsuki Bungo, Kimura Hiroaki, Matsuda Shuichi. Nov;2017 Clinical Spine Surgery: A Spine Publication. 30(9):E1246–E1250. doi: 10.1097/bsd.0000000000000567. doi: 10.1097/bsd.0000000000000567. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Properties and clinical application safety of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in kyphoplasty. Opalko Maciej, Bösebeck Hans, Vogt Sebastian. Jul 27;2019 Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 14(1):238. doi: 10.1186/s13018-019-1200-3. doi: 10.1186/s13018-019-1200-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Efficacy of Antibiotic-Loaded Cement Augmentation for Correcting Low Grade Pedicle Screw Loosening. Kim Chi Ho, Ju Chang Il, Lee Sung Myung, Kim Seok Won. 2021Korean Journal of Neurotrauma. 17(1):41. doi: 10.13004/kjnt.2021.17.e2. doi: 10.13004/kjnt.2021.17.e2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Cement leakage causes potential thermal injury in vertebroplasty. Lai Po-Liang, Tai Ching-Lung, Chen Lih-Huei, Nien Nai-Yuan. May 26;2011 BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 12(1):116. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-116. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Neurological deterioration after cement injection into a vertebral body. Wilkes Ra, Mackinnon Jg, Thomas Wg. Jan;1994 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume. 76-B(1):155–155. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.76b1.8300663. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.76b1.8300663. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Infection after total hip arthroplasty. Past, present, and future. Garvin K L, Hanssen A D. Oct;1995 The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 77(10):1576–1588. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199510000-00015. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199510000-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Orthopedic Reviews are provided here courtesy of Open Medical Publishing

RESOURCES