Review of Selected Orthopaedic Implants for their Genotoxicity Potential

Mariya George; Sangeetha V Naveen; M R Murali; S S Murugan; T S Kumaravel; T N Sathya

doi:10.17485/IJST/v16i30.george

Article

Review of Selected Orthopaedic Implants for their Genotoxicity Potential

VIEWS 4376
PDF 615

Indian Journal of Science and Technology

DOI: 10.17485/IJST/v16i30.george

Year: 2023, Volume: 16, Issue: 30, Pages: 2311-2316

Original Article

Review of Selected Orthopaedic Implants for their Genotoxicity Potential

Mariya George¹, Sangeetha V Naveen², M R Murali², S S Murugan³, T S Kumaravel⁴, T N Sathya^2*

¹Research Scholar, Toxicology, GLR Laboratories Private Limited, India
²Scientist, Toxicology, GLR Laboratories Private Limited, India
³Managing Director and Principal Scientist - Toxicology, GLR Laboratories, India
⁴Chairman, Head of the Department, Toxicology, GLR Laboratories Private Limited, India

*Corresponding Author
Email: [email protected]

Received Date:18 November 2022, Accepted Date:04 August 2023, Published Date:08 August 2023

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Orthopaedic implants are intended to be part of a biological system for a considerable amount of time, hence its essential to test for their genotoxicity. This review investigates the genotoxicity associated with various orthopaedic implant materials. Methods: We collected genotoxicity studies conducted on twenty different types of orthopedic implant materials in our laboratory from 2015 to 2022, along with their accompanying reports. Based on these reports, the implants were categorized into groups according to their materials of construction. This paper includes a thorough evaluation of the findings from the genotoxicity tests obtained from the Bacterial Reverse Mutation Assay, Chromosomal Aberration Assay, and Micronucleus Assay conducted on orthopedic implant materials in our laboratory. Findings: A total of 20 different orthopedic implants were tested in our laboratory for their genotoxic potential. These 20 implants were made of four different materials viz., titanium alloys, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, stainless steel and Cobalt chromium molybdenum alloys. All these implants were tested on Ames test, chromosome aberration test and or in vivo micronucleus tests. None of the materials showed any evidence of mutagenicity. Novelty: This is the first open paper highlighting the results of genotoxicity testing of selected orthopedic implant materials.

Keywords: Orthopaedic Implants; Genotoxicity; Chromosomal Aberration; Ames; Micronucleus Assay

References

Phillips DH, Arlt VM. Genotoxicity: damage to DNA and its consequences. Experientia Supplementum. 2009;99:87–110. Available from: https://core.ac.uk/reader/29909583?utm_source=linkout
Turkez H, Arslan ME, Ozdemir O. Genotoxicity testing: progress and prospects for the next decade. Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology. 2017;13(10):1089–1098. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17425255.2017.1375097
Kumaravel TS, Brabu B, Parthiban N, Murugan SS, Jha AN. Site of contact genotoxicity’ assessment for implants - Potential use of single cell gel electrophoresis in biocompatibility testing of medical devices. Toxicology Letters. 2021;341:59–67. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2021.01.024
Nesslany F. The current limitations of in vitro genotoxicity testing and their relevance to the in vivo situation. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2017;106:609–615. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27591928/
Shrivats AR, Alvarez P, Schutte L, Hollinger JO. Bone Regeneration. Princ Tissue Eng Fourth Ed. 2013;p. 1201–1222. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-398358-9.00055-0
Kim T, See CW, Li X, Zhu D. Orthopedic implants and devices for bone fractures and defects: Past, present and perspective. Engineered Regeneration. 2020;1:6–18. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engreg.2020.05.003
Stanford CM. Surface Modification of Biomedical and Dental Implants and the Processes of Inflammation, Wound Healing and Bone Formation. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2009;11(1):354–369. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20162020/
Hadjidakis DJ, Androulakis II. Bone Remodeling. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2006;1092(1):385–396. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17308163/
AFM, Dimitriou R, Parvizi J, Babis GC. Biology of implant osseointegration. Journal of Musculoskeletal and Neuronal Interactions. 2009;9(2):61–71. Available from: https://www.ismni.org/jmni/pdf/36/01MAVROGENIS.pdf
Kim T, See CW, Li X, Zhu D. Orthopedic implants and devices for bone fractures and defects: Past, present and perspective. Engineered Regeneration. 2020;1:6–18. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engreg.2020.05.003
Goodman SB, Yao Z, Keeney M, Yang F. The future of biologic coatings for orthopaedic implants. Biomaterials. 2013;34(13):3174–3183. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23391496/
Wang Y, Teng W, Zhang Z, Ma S, Jin Z, Zhou X, et al. Remote Eradication of Bacteria on Orthopedic Implants via Delayed Delivery of Polycaprolactone Stabilized Polyvinylpyrrolidone Iodine. Journal of Functional Biomaterials. 2022;13(4):195. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/ jfb13040195
Quinn J, Mcfadden R, Chan CW, Carson L. Titanium for Orthopedic Applications: An Overview of Surface Modification to Improve Biocompatibility and Prevent Bacterial Biofilm Formation. iScience. 2020;23(11):101745. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101745
Uhthoff HK, Bardos DI, Liskova-Kiar M. The advantages of titanium alloy over stainless steel plates for the internal fixation of fractures. An experimental study in dogs. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume. 1981;63-B(3):427–484. Available from: https://online.boneandjoint.org.uk/doi/abs/10.1302/0301-620X.63B3.7263759
Cowie RM, Pallem NM, Briscoe A, Jennings LM. Third Body Wear of UHMWPE-on-PEEK-OPTIMA™. Materials. 2020;13(6):1264. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32168765
Filip N, Radu I, Veliceasa B, Filip C, Pertea M, Clim A, et al. Biomaterials in Orthopedic Devices: Current Issues and Future Perspectives. Coatings. 2022;12(10):1544. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/ coatings12101544
ISO 10993-1:2018. Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process. 2018.
ISO 10993-12:2021. Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 12: Sample preparation and reference materials.
ISO 10993-3:2014. Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 3: Tests for genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity. 2014.
Rodriguez-Garraus A, Azqueta A, Vettorazzi A, Cerain ALD. Genotoxicity of Silver Nanoparticles. Nanomaterials. 2020;10(2):251. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10020251
Figgitt M, Parry M, Maclean A, Blom A, Bannister G, Eastaugh-Waring S, et al. Genotoxicity of orthopaedic wear debris: A patient study. Toxicology. 2011;290(2-3):115. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2011.09.026
Qin HM, Herrera D, Liu DF, Chen CQ, Nersesyan A, Mišík M, et al. Genotoxic properties of materials used for endoprostheses: Experimental and human data. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2020;145:111707. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2020.111707

Copyright

© 2023 George et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Published By Indian Society for Education and Environment (iSee)