Update on Prevention and Treatment of Orthopedic Infection in Horses

A special issue of Animals (ISSN 2076-2615). This special issue belongs to the section "Equids".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 July 2021) | Viewed by 7857

Special Issue Editor

Large Animal Department, Robert H. Smith, Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences, Koret School of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Teaching Hospital, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, P.O. Box 12, Rehovot 7610001, Israel
Interests: horses; orthopedic infection; clinical studies; bone; soft tissues
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear colleagues,

Horses usually develop bone infection subsequent to traumatic incidents involving fractures, lacerations, and puncture wounds. Horses with long bone fractures, especially if they are open fractures (skin penetrated or broken during or after fracture), are predisposed to developing bone infection. Long bone fractures often require internal fixation with plates and screws or other materials, making the area prone to infection even if the primary incident does not lead to an open fracture. This is often associated with long surgical procedures, damaged/injured soft tissues, and the presence of implants. In addition, foals usually develop bone infection secondary to bacteremia or septicemia (systemic infections spread through the blood), which are relatively common in neonatal foals that have failure or partial failure of passive transfer from colostral antibodies. For a successful outcome, bone infection needs to be treated early and aggressively with bactericidal antibiotics and, in some cases, surgery.

This Special Issue seeks to report on the recent original research findings and reviews related to orthopedic infection of horses on prevention, diagnosis, as well as method or medicine for treatment.

Dr. Gal Kelmer
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Animals is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • horses
  • orthopedic infection
  • bone
  • soft tissues
  • prevention
  • treatment

Published Papers (2 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

9 pages, 3345 KiB  
Article
Synovial Concentration of Trimethoprim-Sulphadiazine Following Regional Limb Perfusion in Standing Horses
by Kajsa Gustafsson, Amos J. Tatz, Roee Dahan, Wiessam Abu Ahmad, Malka Britzi, Gila A. Sutton and Gal Kelmer
Animals 2021, 11(7), 2085; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ani11072085 - 13 Jul 2021
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 3365
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and pharmacokinetics of trimethoprim-sulphadiazine administered via intravenous regional limb perfusion (IVRLP) into the cephalic vein. According to the hypothesis, the drug could be administered without adverse effects and the synovial concentrations would remain [...] Read more.
The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and pharmacokinetics of trimethoprim-sulphadiazine administered via intravenous regional limb perfusion (IVRLP) into the cephalic vein. According to the hypothesis, the drug could be administered without adverse effects and the synovial concentrations would remain above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for trimethoprim-sulphadiazine (0.5 and 9.5 µg/mL) for 24 h. Ten (n = 10) horses underwent cephalic vein IVRLP with an Esmarch tourniquet applied for 30 min. Four grams (4 g) of trimethoprim-sulphadiazine (TMP-SDZ) were diluted at 0.9% NaCl for a total volume of 100 mL. Synovial fluid and blood samples were obtained immediately before IVRLP and at 0.25, 0.5, 2, 6, 12 and 24 h after the initiation of IVRLP. Trimethoprim and sulphadiazine concentrations were determined using a method based on liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. The Cmax (peak drug concentration) values were 36 ± 31.1 and 275.3 ± 214.4 µg/mL (TMP and SDZ). The respective tmax (time to reach Cmax) values were 20 ± 7.8 and 26.4 ± 7.2 min. The initial synovial fluid concentrations were high but decreased quickly. No horse had synovial concentrations of trimethoprim-sulphadiazine above the MIC at 12 h. Severe vasculitis and pain shortly after IVRLP, lasting up to one week post-injection, occurred in five out of 10 horses. In conclusion, IVRLP with trimethoprim-sulphadiazine cannot be recommended due to the low concentrations of synovial fluid over time and the frequent severe adverse effects causing pain and discomfort in treated horses. Thus, in cases of septic synovitis with bacteria sensitive to trimethoprim-sulphadiazine, other routes of administration should be considered. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Update on Prevention and Treatment of Orthopedic Infection in Horses)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research

15 pages, 1096 KiB  
Review
Biofilm and Equine Limb Wounds
by Elin Jørgensen, Thomas Bjarnsholt and Stine Jacobsen
Animals 2021, 11(10), 2825; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ani11102825 - 27 Sep 2021
Cited by 13 | Viewed by 3204
Abstract
In chronic wounds in humans, biofilm formation and wound chronicity are linked, as biofilms contribute to chronic inflammation and delayed healing. Biofilms are aggregates of bacteria, and living as biofilms is the default mode of bacterial life; within these aggregates, the bacteria are [...] Read more.
In chronic wounds in humans, biofilm formation and wound chronicity are linked, as biofilms contribute to chronic inflammation and delayed healing. Biofilms are aggregates of bacteria, and living as biofilms is the default mode of bacterial life; within these aggregates, the bacteria are protected from both antimicrobial substances and the immune response of the host. In horses, delayed healing is more commonly seen in limb wounds than body wounds. Chronic inflammation and hypoxia are the main characteristics of delayed wound healing in equine limbs, and biofilms might also contribute to this healing pattern in horses. However, biofilm formation in equine wounds has been studied to a very limited degree. Biofilms have been detected in equine traumatic wounds, and recent experimental models have shown that biofilms protract the healing of equine limb wounds. Detection of biofilms within wounds necessitates advanced techniques that are not available in routine diagnostic yet. However, infections with biofilm should be suspected in equine limb wounds not healing as expected, as they are in human wounds. Treatment should be based on repeated debridement and application of topical antimicrobial therapy. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Update on Prevention and Treatment of Orthopedic Infection in Horses)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop