Infection burden and immunological responses are equivalent for polymeric and metallic implant materials in vitro and in a murine model of fracture-related infection

The development of an infection is a major complication for some patients with implanted biomaterials. Whether the material or surface composition of the used biomaterial influences infection has not been directly compared for key biomaterials currently in use in human patients. We conducted a thorough in vitro and in vivo investigation using titanium (Ti) and polyether–ether–ketone (PEEK) as both commercially available and as modified equivalents (surface polished Ti, and oxygen plasma treated PEEK). Complement activation and cytokine secretion of cell of the immune system was assessed in vitro for all materials in the absence and presence of bacterial stimulants. In a follow-up in vivo study, we monitored bacterial infection associated with clinically available and standard Ti and PEEK inoculated with Staphylococcus aureus. Complement activation was affected by material choice in the absence of bacterial stimulation, although the material based differences were largely lost upon bacterial stimulation. In the in vivo study, the bacterial burden, histological response and cytokine secretion suggests that there is no significant difference between both PEEK and Ti. In conclusion, the underlying material has a certain impact in the absence of bacterial stimulation, however, in the presence of bacterial stimulation, bacteria seem to dictate the responses in a manner that overshadows the influence of material surface properties.