BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the ability of poliglecaprone 25 suture with triclosan to inhibit bacterial colonization by Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus in mouse and guinea pig models. METHODS: Test and control sutures (3-4 cm) were implanted subcutaneously in the dorsal-lateral regions (control on the left side, test on the right side, approximately 3-5 cm apart) in 10 female Hartley guinea pigs (300-400 g) and 10 Swiss Webster mice (20-35 g) via a 20-gauge catheter. The test material was poliglecaprone 25 suture with triclosan (2-0, undyed), and the control material was poliglecaprone 25 suture (2-0, undyed). In the guinea pig model, each implantation site was challenged directly with 4x10(5) colony-forming units (cfu) of S. aureus, whereas in the mouse model, each implantation site was challenged directly with 1.3x10(7) cfu of E. coli through an indwelling catheter. At 48 h post-implantation, the control and test sutures were explanted, and bacterial enumeration was performed. RESULTS: There was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the number of bacteria recovered in the study groups 48 h post-implantation. Poliglecaprone 25 suture with triclosan produced a 3.4-log reduction in S. aureus and a 2-log reduction in E. coli compared with standard poliglecaprone 25 suture without triclosan under the same challenge conditions. The difference between the study groups in the number of bacteria recovered was significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Poliglecaprone 25 suture with triclosan inhibited bacterial colonization of the suture compared with untreated suture after direct in vivo challenge with S. aureus and E. coli in animal models.
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the ability of poliglecaprone 25 suture with triclosan to inhibit bacterial colonization by Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus in mouse and guinea pig models. METHODS: Test and control sutures (3-4 cm) were implanted subcutaneously in the dorsal-lateral regions (control on the left side, test on the right side, approximately 3-5 cm apart) in 10 female Hartley guinea pigs (300-400 g) and 10 Swiss Webster mice (20-35 g) via a 20-gauge catheter. The test material was poliglecaprone 25 suture with triclosan (2-0, undyed), and the control material was poliglecaprone 25 suture (2-0, undyed). In the guinea pig model, each implantation site was challenged directly with 4x10(5) colony-forming units (cfu) of S. aureus, whereas in the mouse model, each implantation site was challenged directly with 1.3x10(7) cfu of E. coli through an indwelling catheter. At 48 h post-implantation, the control and test sutures were explanted, and bacterial enumeration was performed. RESULTS: There was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the number of bacteria recovered in the study groups 48 h post-implantation. Poliglecaprone 25 suture with triclosan produced a 3.4-log reduction in S. aureus and a 2-log reduction in E. coli compared with standard poliglecaprone 25 suture without triclosan under the same challenge conditions. The difference between the study groups in the number of bacteria recovered was significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION:Poliglecaprone 25 suture with triclosan inhibited bacterial colonization of the suture compared with untreated suture after direct in vivo challenge with S. aureus and E. coli in animal models.
Authors: Johanna Turtiainen; Eija I T Saimanen; Kimmo T Mäkinen; Antti I Nykänen; Maarit A Venermo; Ilkka T Uurto; Tapio Hakala Journal: World J Surg Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Esther J Lee; Beom Kang Huh; Se Na Kim; Jae Yeon Lee; Chun Gwon Park; Antonios G Mikos; Young Bin Choy Journal: Prog Mater Sci Date: 2017-06-13
Authors: David Leaper; Andrew J McBain; Axel Kramer; Ojan Assadian; Jose Luis Alfonso Sanchez; Jukka Lumio; Martin Kiernan Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Christopher B Weldon; Jonathan H Tsui; Sahadev A Shankarappa; Vy T Nguyen; Minglin Ma; Daniel G Anderson; Daniel S Kohane Journal: J Control Release Date: 2012-05-17 Impact factor: 9.776
Authors: David Leaper; Ojan Assadian; Nils-Olaf Hubner; Andrew McBain; Thomas Barbolt; Stephen Rothenburger; Peter Wilson Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2011-08-19 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Charles E Edmiston; Candace J Krepel; Richard M Marks; Peter J Rossi; James Sanger; Matthew Goldblatt; Mary Beth Graham; Stephen Rothenburger; John Collier; Gary R Seabrook Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Stacey E Anderson; Jennifer Franko; Michael L Kashon; Katie L Anderson; Ann F Hubbs; Ewa Lukomska; B Jean Meade Journal: Toxicol Sci Date: 2012-11-28 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: X Wu; N Z Kubilay; J Ren; B Allegranzi; P Bischoff; B Zayed; D Pittet; J Li Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2016-09-02 Impact factor: 3.267