Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Mar 17;15(3):e0230533. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230533

Atmospheric impregnation behavior of calcium phosphate materials for antibiotic therapy in neurotrauma surgery

Akihito Kato 1,*
Editor: Esmaiel Jabbari2
PMCID: PMC7077826  PMID: 32182267

Abstract

As part of a verification model of antibiotic therapy in cranioplasty, we evaluated the impregnation efficiency of interporous calcium phosphate materials with saline under atmospheric pressure and compared it to the efficiency of using the decompression method established by the Japanese Industrial Standard, under which pressure is reduced by 10 kPa. Five types of material formed in 1 mL cubes were selected as test samples: two consisting of hydroxyapatite (HAp) with 85% and 55% porosity and three of β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) with 75%, 67%, and 57% porosity. All test samples showed an impregnation ratio of more than 70%, except for the HAp sample with 55% porosity, which had a ratio of approximately 50%. These high ratios were achieved at only 15 min. The impregnation effects were likely dependent on porosity and were independent of base material, either HAp or β-TCP. Obtaining sufficient impregnation and antimicrobial efficacy in materials with low porosity, which are commonly used in cranioplasty, would require an increased volume of antibiotics rather than increased duration of impregnation. Our findings will enable the simple preparation of drug-impregnated calcium phosphate materials, even in operating rooms not equipped with a large decompression device.

Introduction

The prognosis of patients treated for traumatic brain injury is strongly dependent on prehospital care, maintenance of emergency systems, and rapid response to secondary injuries such as blood flow and metabolic abnormalities [1,2]. In particular, open depressed cranial fractures require surgery within 24 h after onset, and the risk of infection clearly increases after 48 h [3]. While the incidence of postoperative infection is approximately 5% of cases in the orthopaedic field, it is 11–34% in the neurosurgical field [46]. This difference is considered due to the typically more complicated and larger craniotomy required for the latter cases, and the greater contact between bone fragments and the brain. Local drug delivery devices provide more efficient delivery of larger amounts of antibiotic to sites of infection [7]. While most orthopaedic implants are performed using antibiotic-impregnated bone cement [8], the mixing and shaping of bone cement during cranioplasty is difficult when the bone defect is large or cosmetic issues are present. For this reason, custom-made artificial bone is often used, composed of interporous calcium phosphate such as hydroxyapatite (HAp) and β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP). Antibiotics are generally impregnated into the pores using a centrifuge or vacuum. Itokazu et al. impregnated the antibiotic arbekacin into an HAp block by centrifugation at 1500 rpm for 15 min, and demonstrated that the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was maintained unchanged for 18 days [9]. However, this method is difficult to perform in the operating room and limits the size of the HAp block. Furthermore, these authors also impregnated the antibiotic isepamicin (ISP) into an HAp block using a vacuum method for 20 min, and demonstrated that the MIC against the common causative organisms of osteomyelitis was maintained unchanged for 18 days [10,11]. However, these devices are not available in all operating rooms. Further, if antibiotic impregnation is attempted under atmospheric pressure, the correlation between duration and level of antibiotic impregnation is unclear.

Here, we evaluated the behavior of calcium phosphate materials impregnated under atmospheric conditions without special equipment, as shown in Fig 1, and compared results with those obtained using the standardized decompression method established by the Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS).

Fig 1. Schematic illustration of this study.

Fig 1

Antibiotics are generally impregnated into the pores of implants using a vacuum to prevent postoperative infection. However, such decompression devices are not available in all operating rooms. We demonstrated that an impregnation ratio of more than 70% was achieved under atmospheric conditions at only 15 min.

Materials and methods

Materials

Calcium phosphate materials were obtained from HOYA Technosurgical (Tokyo, Japan) and are standardized for clinical use [1214]. Five types were selected as test samples, namely CP-A, CP-B, CP-C, CP-D, and CP-E. CP-A (APACERAM®-AX) and CP-E (APACERAM®) consist of pure HAp with 85% and 55% porosity, respectively, while CP-B (SUPERPORE® standard type), CP-C (SUPERPORE® hard type) and CP-D (SUPERPORE® EX) consist of pure β-TCP with 75%, 67%, and 57% porosity, respectively. All test samples are formed in 1 mL cubes (10 mm × 10 mm × 10 mm), except for CP-C, which is formed in a 1.5 mL cuboid (10 mm × 10 mm × 15 mm).

Decompression method

Impregnation under decompression was performed according to the JIS A1509-3 standards using the impregnation system shown in Fig 2. Each test sample was placed within a vessel in a vacuum state for 30 min during which the pressure was reduced by 10 kPa. Subsequently, saline was injected into the vessel to a depth of 50 mm, while the vacuum state was kept intact. The vacuum was then removed and the vessel was left to stand under atmospheric pressure for 15 min. The test samples were then wiped gently with a wet towel and weighed. Impregnation amount per gram of test sample (Wr) was then calculated using the following formula:

Wr=WaWbWb (1)

where Wa and Wb indicate the test sample weights after and before impregnation, respectively.

Fig 2. The impregnation test system under decompression.

Fig 2

(a) Calcium phosphate test specimen; (b) pressure-resistance glass vessel; (c) cock; (d) saline; (e) pressure gauge; and (f) vacuum pump.

Atmospheric method and impregnation ratio

Impregnation under atmospheric pressure was carried out in the same manner as above except that the samples were not placed in a vacuum and the pressure was not reduced. The test samples were removed and weighed at 15, 30, 60, and 120 min after saline injection. Impregnation amount per gram under atmospheric pressure (Ws) was calculated as above, and the impregnation ratio (Rs) was calculated as follows:

Rs=WsWr×100 (2)

The experimental impregnation ratio per volume (Re) of test sample under reduced pressure and atmospheric pressure, where v and d are the volume of each test sample and the specific gravity of saline, respectively, was calculated as follows:

Re=(WaWb)vd×100 (3)

The actual porosity (Rt) of each sample, which corresponds to the theoretical impregnation ratio, was calculated using following formula:

Rt=(1Wvd)×100 (4)

where W, v, and d are the weight, volume, and specific gravity of each test sample, respectively. All experiments were replicated three times at room temperature, and mean values and standard deviations are shown.

Statistics

Impregnation ratios at set times were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U-test as a non-parametric test using HAD software (version 16, Kwansei Gakuin University, Hyogo, Japan) [15]. This test was used because the normality was unreliable due to the small sample size, and comparison between two groups, such as 15 min versus other durations (duration of impregnation) or reduced versus atmospheric pressure (impregnation method), was sufficient to evaluate impregnation efficiency. Differences were considered statistically significant when p-values were less than 0.05.

Results

Fig 3 shows the impregnation ratio under atmospheric pressure (Rs). All of the test samples showed an impregnation ratio of more than 70%, except for CP-E, which had a ratio of approximately 50%. These high ratios were achieved at only 15 min, after which they plateaued, except for CP-B and CP-D, which showed a slight decrease between 15 and 120 min and a slight increase between 15 and 30 min, respectively.

Fig 3. Impregnation ratio of five types of calcium phosphate material under atmospheric pressure compared to the decompression method standardized by JIS.

Fig 3

(A) CP-A consisting of HAp with 85% porosity; (B) CP-B consisting of β-TCP with 75% porosity; (C) CP-C consisting of β-TCP with 67% porosity; (D) CP-D consisting of β-TCP with 57% porosity; and (E) CP-E consisting of HAp with 55% porosity.

Fig 4 shows the experimental impregnation ratio at 15 min per volume of test sample under reduced pressure and atmospheric pressure (Re), and the theoretical impregnation ratio (Rt) if all the pores of each test sample were filled with saline. The ratio in the reduced group was significantly higher than that in the atmospheric group (p = 0.049 for all test samples), and the impregnation ratio did not reach the theoretical value, even when impregnated under reduced pressure. CP-E showed a markedly lower impregnation ratio than the other samples.

Fig 4. Comparison of theoretical and experimental impregnation ratios at 15 min per volume of test sample under reduced pressure and atmospheric pressure.

Fig 4

While all data are presented with error bars, some of the error bars are difficult to see because the magnitude of the error is smaller than the marker size (e.g. CP-E in the theoretical group).

Discussion

The impregnation of calcium phosphate materials of various porosities with saline under atmospheric pressure was evaluated and the results were compared to those using the JIS decompression method. Given that the results of this study depend on the structure and physical properties of the test sample, the findings will only be applicable to the materials used in this study. Because these materials are standardized for porosity, density, purity, and mechanical strength as medical devices [1214], the results will be reproducible within these limits. The test samples all showed similar impregnation ratios at 15 min, except for low porosity CP-E (Fig 3). There were no significant differences in impregnation level among the materials, even when the test was continued for longer than 15 min, except for CP-B between 15 and 120 min and CP-D between 15 and 30 min. CP-B consists of β-TCP with high porosity, which may cause slight dissolution, resulting in a reduced weight. CP-D would require a greater duration of impregnation for a plateau to occur, because it has interconnecting pores despite its low porosity [12], resulting in an increased weight.

The impregnation ratio per volume of each test sample should theoretically be the same as the porosity of the sample. However, we found a significant difference between the experimental and theoretical impregnation ratios, indicating that not all of the pores of a sample were filled with saline even when impregnated under a reduced pressure (Fig 4). These results show that the interporous calcium phosphate material has closed pores which the external fluid cannot enter [16]. Figs 3 and 4 show that CP-E has a markedly lower impregnation ratio than the other samples. One explanation for this may be that CP-E has fewer interconnecting pores within the material compared with CP-A, CP-B, CP-C, and CP-D, which have a triple pore structure (macro pores, micro pores, and interconnecting pores) [12]. The difference in impregnation ratio between CP-D and CP-E despite their similar porosity may be due to differences in such microstructures within the materials. Generally, drug impregnation into calcium phosphate materials is carried out by centrifugation and vacuum methods, which forcibly removes air inside the material to increase the impregnation effect [911]. To obtain an equivalent effect without decompression, removal of air from inside the material would represent a rate-limiting step of the process. Air bubbles inside the material would be removed by exchange with external fluid, for which the following Stokes’ equation could be applied [17]:

v=D2(ρbρf)g18η (5)

where v and D are the velocity and size of bubble, respectively, ρb and ρf are the density of bubble and fluid, respectively, g is the gravity acceleration, and η is the viscosity. The removal efficiency of air is proportional to the square of the pore size, assuming that the bubble and pore sizes are equal, and the impregnation effects depend on both porosity and interconnecting pores and are independent of base material, HAp or β-TCP.

Itokazu et al. demonstrated that when the antibiotic ISP was impregnated into an HAp block with 50% porosity using a vacuum method for 20 min and the pressure was reduced by approximately 250 mmHg (33 kPa), the resulting ISP-impregnated HAp block with a 40% impregnation ratio released ISP for more than 18 days [10]. If the elution curve is integrated from day 2 to 18, however, the total elution volume of ISP appears to exceed the impregnated amount before the examination. We consider that it is unclear whether the antibiotic fraction impregnated using decompression can be released naturally from interporous materials, and that it is necessary to consider the effects of the fraction adsorbed to the material surface [18].

In conclusion, we demonstrated that atmospheric impregnation of saline into calcium phosphate materials, except in a test sample with fewer interconnecting pores, achieved an impregnation ratio of more than 70% at 15 min using a standardized decompression method established by the JIS. The impregnation effects likely depend on both the porosity and interconnecting pores. Obtaining sufficient impregnation and antimicrobial efficacy in materials with low porosity or fewer interconnecting pores, which are commonly used in cranioplasty, would require an increased volume of antibiotics rather than increased duration of impregnation. In our neurotrauma surgery, antibiotic-impregnated calcium phosphate materials are prepared within approximately one hour from the onset to completion of the craniotomy. Accordingly, the completion of impregnation within 15 min, as shown in this study, would have no effect on neurotrauma surgery, and the sintered HAp material shows little dissolution to affect physical properties and mechanical strength in such a short duration of impregnation [19]. Our findings will enable the simple preparation of drug-impregnated calcium phosphate materials, and could also be applied to the preservation of bone fragments impregnated with drug solution in craniotomy, even in operating rooms without a large decompression device.

Supporting information

S1 File. Raw data.

(PDF)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors have no funding to report.

References

  • 1.Brain Trauma Foundation, American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS), Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS), AANS/CNS Joint Section on Neurotrauma and Critical Care. Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2007;24: Supplement 1:S1–106. 10.1089/neu.2007.9999 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Karibe H, Hayashi T, Narisawa A, Kameyama M, Nakagawa A, Tominaga T. Clinical characteristics and outcome in elderly patients with traumatic brain injury: For establishment of management strategy. Neurol Med Chir. 2017;57: 418–425. 10.2176/nmc.st.2017-0058 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bullock MR, Chesnut R, Ghajar J, Gordon D, Hartl R, Newell DW, et al. Surgical management of depressed cranial fractures. Neurosurgery. 2006;58: Supplement 3:S56–60. 10.1227/01.NEU.0000210367.14043.0E [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Goodman SB, Yao Z, Keeney M, Yang F. The future of biologic coatings for orthopaedic implants. Biomaterials. 2013;34: 3174–3183. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.01.074 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gooch MR, Gin GE, Kenning TJ, German JW. Complications of cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy: analysis of 62 cases. Neurosurg Focus. 2009;26: E9 10.3171/2009.3.FOCUS0962 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Matsuno A, Tanaka H, Iwamuro H, Takanashi S, Miyawaki S, Nakashima M, et al. Analyses of the factors influencing bone graft infection after delayed cranioplasty. Acta Neurochir. 2006;148: 535–540. 10.1007/s00701-006-0740-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hanssen AD. Local antibiotic delivery vehicles in the treatment of musculoskeletal infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;437: 91–96. 10.1097/01.bio.0000175713.30506.77 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Vallet-Regi M. Revisiting ceramics for medical applications. Dalton Trans. 2006;44: 5211–5220. 10.1039/B610219K [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Itokazu M, Matsunaga T, Kumazawa S., Wenyi Y. A novel drug delivery system for osteomyelitis using porous hydroxyapatite blocks loaded by centrifugation. J. Appl. Biomater. 1995:6: 167–169. 10.1002/jab.770060304 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Itokazu M, Aoki T, Nonomura H, Nishimoto Y, Itoh Y. Antibiotic-loaded porous hydroxyapatite blocks for the treatment of osteomyelitis and postoperative infection. A preliminary report. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 1998;57: 125–129. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Itokazu M, Yang W, Aoki T, Ohara A, Kato N. Synthesis of antibiotic-loaded interporous hydroxyapatite blocks by vacuum method and in vitro drug release testing. Biomaterials. 1998:19: 817–819. 10.1016/s0142-9612(97)00237-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Seto S, Muramatsu K, Hashimoto T, Tominaga Y, Taguchi T. A new β-tricalcium phosphate with uniform triple superporous structure as a filling material after curettage of bone tumor. Anticancer Res. 2013;33: 5075–5081. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kim P, Wakai S, Matsuo S, Moriyama T, Kirino T. Bisegmental cervical interbody fusion using hydroxyapatite implants: surgical results and long-term observation in 70 cases. J Neurosurg. 1998;88: 21–27. 10.3171/jns.1998.88.1.0021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Oguchi H, Ishikawa K, Mizoue K, Seto K, Eguchi G. Long-term histological evaluation of hydroxyapatite ceramics in humans. Biomaterials. 1995;16: 33–38. 10.1016/0142-9612(95)91093-e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Shimizu H. An introduction to the statistical free software HAD: Suggestions to improve teaching, learning and practice data analysis. J. Media, Inf. Commun. 2016:1: 59–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sopyan I, Mel M, Ramesh S, Khalid KA. Porous hydroxyapatite for artificial bone applications. Sci Technol Adv Mater. 2007;8: 116–123. 10.1016/j.stam.2006.11.017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Medema GJ, Schets FM, Teunis PF, Havelaar AH. Sedimentation of free and attached Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia cysts in water. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998;64: 4460–4466. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Taniyama T, Masaoka T, Yamada T, Wei X, Yasuda H, Yoshii T. Repair of osteochondral defects in a rabbit model using a porous hydroxyapatite collagen composite impregnated with bone morphogenetic protein-2. Artif Organs. 2015;39: 529–535. 10.1111/aor.12409 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fulmer MT, Ison IC, Hankermayer CR, Constantz BR, Ross J. Measurements of the solubilities and dissolution rates of several hydroxyapatites. Biomaterials. 2002:23: 751–755. 10.1016/s0142-9612(01)00180-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Esmaiel Jabbari

13 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-30682

Atmospheric impregnation behavior of calcium phosphate materials for antibiotic therapy in neurotrauma surgery

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. KATO,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Specifically:

-Incomplete review of the previous research

-Incomplete description of experimental procedure

-Incomplete statistical analysis of the experimental data

-Limited experimental data in support of the hypothesis

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 27 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Esmaiel Jabbari, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note you have not completed the financial disclosure section.

a)    Please provide a Funding Statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support received during this specific study (whether external or internal to your organization) as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  

b)    Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funder. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note you have not completed the Competing Interests section:  

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (1) In the Introduction Section, a brief review of the literature is lacking. Has any work been reported on this topic? If so, what are the shortcomings of these studies?

(2) Throughout the manuscript, it best to replace "time" with "duration of impregnation".

(3) In the Materials and Methods Section, it was stated that tests were conducted using (a) special equipment, under atmospheric impregnation and (b) without special equipment, under atmospheric condition. However, it appears that the only results given as those obtained using special equipment, under atmospheric impregnation.

(4) Why was a parametric method (unpaired t-test) used for the statistical analysis? It should be noted that before using a parametric method, normality must be established for each of the datasets. Thus, it is best to use a non-parametric method, such as the Kruskal-Wallis method with an appropriate post-hoc test (such as Bonferroni).

(5) With regard to Figure 4, there is some confusion with regard to error bars:

(a) why are there error bars on the theoretical results?

(b) why are error bars not shown in some of the experimental results?

(6) In the Results Section, why are there no results of the statistical comparison between impregnation ratios under atmospheric pressure [ATMOS RATIO) versus when the decompression machine was used (per JIS A1509-3 Standard) [DECOMP RATIO]?

(7) As a follow-up to item (6), from the results presented in Figure 4, it appears that, by and large,

for a given CP, DECOMP RATIO is markedly higher than ATMOS RATIO. Thus, the results do not support the authors' assertion/hypothesis.

(8) In the Discussion Section, please add statements about study limitations. For each limitation, state (a) why it was used; and (b) why its use does not undermine the conclusion reached in the study.

(9) As a general comment, the work presented in this manuscript is very limited in its scope. For example, how does duration of impregnation affect physical, mechanical, and other properties of the CaP-based composite that are crucial for use in neurotrauma surgery (ATMOS group versus DECOMP group)? What is the impact on duration of the surgery?

This shortcoming of the work reported in this manuscript makes it very difficult to assess the extent to which the present findings will influence surgical practice (if at all).

Reviewer #2: This paper is acceptable after the minor revision.

Difference in impregnation ratio between hydroxyapatite and b-TCP with similar porosity should be discussed in more detail, especially D and E in Fig. 3.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Mar 17;15(3):e0230533. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230533.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


27 Feb 2020

RESPONSE TO EDITOR:

We wish to express our appreciation to the Editor for his or her insightful comments, which have helped us significantly improve the paper.

Comment 1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: We appreciate the editor’s comment. We have confirmed that our manuscript meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

Comments 2: We note you have not completed the financial disclosure section. (snip) Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: We appreciate the editor’s comment. We have added the financial statement within our cover letter.

Comment 3: We note you have not completed the Competing Interests section. Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. (snip) This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: We appreciate the editor’s comment. We have added the Competing Interests statement within our cover letter and on the online submission form.

Comment 4: PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager.

Response: In accordance with the editor’s comment, we have created a new ID.

Thank you again for your comments on our paper. We trust that the revised manuscript is suitable for publication.

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1:

We wish to express our appreciation to the Reviewer for his or her insightful comments, which have helped us significantly improve the paper.

Comment 1: In the Introduction Section, a brief review of the literature is lacking. Has any work been reported on this topic? If so, what are the shortcomings of these studies?

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We agree that this point requires clarification, and have added the following text with some references to the Introduction section (p. 3, lines 53-60):

“Itokazu et al. impregnated the antibiotic arbekacin into an HAp block by centrifugation at 1500 rpm for 15 min, and demonstrated that the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was maintained unchanged for 18 days [9]. However, this method is difficult to perform in the operating room and limits the size of the HAp block. Furthermore, these authors also impregnated the antibiotic isepamicin (ISP) into an HAp block using a vacuum method for 20 min, and demonstrated that the MIC against the common causative organisms of osteomyelitis was maintained unchanged for 18 days [10,11].”

Comment 2: Throughout the manuscript, it best to replace "time" with "duration of impregnation".

Response: In accordance with the reviewer’s comment, we have replaced “time” with “duration of impregnation” throughout the manuscript.

Comment 3: In the Materials and Methods Section, it was stated that tests were conducted using (a) special equipment, under atmospheric impregnation and (b) without special equipment, under atmospheric condition. However, it appears that the only results given as those obtained using special equipment, under atmospheric impregnation.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. But, we believe the reviewer is mistaken on this admittedly difficult point. This study compares the impregnation methods under atmospheric and reduced pressure (p. 4, lines 63-66). Special equipment was used to create decompression conditions, however, the same equipment was used for experiments under atmospheric pressure, since it was necessary to experiment under the same conditions except for pressure. Therefore, in the Materials and Methods section, we intend to state that tests were conducted using (a) special equipment, under atmospheric pressure and (b) special equipment, under reduced pressure, and we believe that the results were correctly described in the Results section. As shown in Figure 2, this special equipment is just a vessel without a decompression operation, therefore, we considered that the results under condition (a) above represent those in an operating room without special decompression devices, and wish to retain the original text.

Comment 4: Why was a parametric method (unpaired t-test) used for the statistical analysis? It should be noted that before using a parametric method, normality must be established for each of the datasets. Thus, it is best to use a non-parametric method, such as the Kruskal-Wallis method with an appropriate post-hoc test (such as Bonferroni).

Response: The reviewer’s comment is correct. Thank you for introducing the recommended method. We agree that this point requires clarification, and need to retry the statistical analysis. Therefore, we have added the following text to the Statistics section (p. 7, lines 131-136):

“Impregnation ratios at set times were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U-test as a non-parametric test using HAD software (version 16, Kwansei Gakuin University, Hyogo, Japan) [15]. This test was used because the normality was unreliable due to the small sample size, and comparison between two groups, such as 15 min versus other durations (duration of impregnation) or reduced versus atmospheric pressure (impregnation method), was sufficient to evaluate impregnation efficiency.”

Comment 5: With regard to Figure 4, there is some confusion with regard to error bars:

(a) why are there error bars on the theoretical results?

(b) why are error bars not shown in some of the experimental results?

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. (a) As described in the Materials and Methods section (p. 6, lines 120-121), the actual porosity of each sample corresponds to the theoretical impregnation ratio. Therefore, in this study, the porosity of each sample was actually measured using the value of the weight, volume, and specific gravity, and was calculated with equation (4). (b) In Figure 4, there were some datasets where the width of the error bar was smaller than that of the marker circle, which showed a result like no error bar. Accordingly, we tried to modify Figure 4 with smaller marker sizes. However, further reduction in marker size decreases the visibility of the data, therefore, we have added the following text to the Figure caption (p. 8, lines 160-162):

“While all data are presented error bars, some of the error bars are difficult to see because the magnitude of the error is smaller than the marker size (e.g. CP-E in the theoretical group).”

Comment 6: In the Results Section, why are there no results of the statistical comparison between impregnation ratios under atmospheric pressure [ATMOS RATIO] versus when the decompression machine was used (per JIS A1509-3 Standard) [DECOMP RATIO]?

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We agree that this point requires clarification, and need to try the statistical analysis. Therefore, we have added the following text to the Results section (p. 8, lines 148-149):

“The ratio in the reduced group was significantly higher than that in the atmospheric group (p = 0.049 for all test samples),”

Comment 7: As a follow-up to item (6), from the results presented in Figure 4, it appears that, by and large, for a given CP, DECOMP RATIO is markedly higher than ATMOS RATIO. Thus, the results do not support the authors' assertion/hypothesis.

Response: The reviewer’s comment is correct. To clarify, we have changed the description to the following text in the Discussion section (p. 11, lines 211-214):

“In conclusion, we demonstrated that atmospheric impregnation of saline into calcium phosphate materials, except in a test sample with fewer interconnecting pores, achieved an impregnation ratio of more than 70% at 15 min using a standardized decompression method established by the JIS.”

Comment 8: In the Discussion Section, please add statements about study limitations. For each limitation, state (a) why it was used; and (b) why its use does not undermine the conclusion reached in the study.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. Accordingly, we have added the following text to the Discussion section (p. 9, lines 169-172):

“Given that the results of this study depend on the structure and physical properties of the test sample, the findings will only be applicable to the materials used in this study. Because these materials are standardized for porosity, density, purity, and mechanical strength as medical devices [12-14], the results will be reproducible within these limits.”

Comment 9: As a general comment, the work presented in this manuscript is very limited in its scope. For example, how does duration of impregnation affect physical, mechanical, and other properties of the CaP-based composite that are crucial for use in neurotrauma surgery (ATMOS group versus DECOMP group)? What is the impact on duration of the surgery?

This shortcoming of the work reported in this manuscript makes it very difficult to assess the extent to which the present findings will influence surgical practice (if at all).

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. Accordingly, we have added the following text to the Discussion section (p. 11, lines 217-222):

“In our neurotrauma surgery, antibiotic-impregnated calcium phosphate materials are prepared within approximately one hour from the onset to completion of the craniotomy. Accordingly, the completion of impregnation within 15 min, as shown in this study, would have no effect on neurotrauma surgery, and the sintered HAp material shows little dissolution to affect physical properties and mechanical strength in such a short duration of impregnation [19].”

Thank you again for your comments on our paper. We trust that the revised manuscript is suitable for publication.

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2:

We wish to express our appreciation to the Reviewer for his or her insightful comments, which have helped us significantly improve the paper.

Comment 1: Difference in impregnation ratio between hydroxyapatite and b-TCP with similar porosity should be discussed in more detail, especially D and E in Fig. 3.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We agree that this point requires clarification, and have added the following text to the Discussion section (p. 10, lines 187-188):

“The difference in impregnation ratio between CP-D and CP-E despite their similar porosity may be due to differences in such microstructures within the materials.”

Thank you again for your comments on our paper. We trust that the revised manuscript is suitable for publication.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Esmaiel Jabbari

3 Mar 2020

Atmospheric impregnation behavior of calcium phosphate materials for antibiotic therapy in neurotrauma surgery

PONE-D-19-30682R1

Dear Dr. KATO,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Esmaiel Jabbari, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The author's effort in including a brief review of the relevant literature is noted. However, the authors included comments on articles by only one research group (Itokazu et al. [Ref. #s 9-11]).

Critical comments on relevant article(s) from at least one other author should be included.

Reviewer #2: This paper is well revised according to the reviewers' comments. So it is acceptable for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Esmaiel Jabbari

5 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-30682R1

Atmospheric impregnation behavior of calcium phosphate materials for antibiotic therapy in neurotrauma surgery

Dear Dr. KATO:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Esmaiel Jabbari

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Raw data.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES