BACKGROUND: Sonication and scraping of infected prostheses usually are used to improve diagnosis of prosthetic infections, reducing false negatives. Chemical methods that reduce biofilms also may allow higher levels of detection. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore asked: (1) Do dithiothreitol (DTT) and N-acetylcysteine (NAC) remove bacteria from biofilm formed on prosthetic materials? (2) Is bacterial recovery affected by differing DTT and NAC concentrations and incubation times? (3) Do treatments with DTT and NAC detach the same amounts of bacteria from biofilm on prosthetic materials as sonication and scraping? (4) Are these methods reproducible? METHODS: We treated polyethylene and titanium discs covered by biofilm formed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus with DTT or NAC solutions at different concentrations for different times. We compared colony counts of S aureus, P aeruginosa, Staphylococcus epidermidis and Escherichia coli after treatment with NAC, DTT, sonication and scraping. We determined colony counts after treatment of biofilm formed by one strain of S aureus and one of P aeruginosa on five discs of each material analyzed on the same day and on five discs analyzed on five consecutive days. RESULTS: Mean colony counts (LogCFU/mL) obtained after treatment with 1 g/L DTT for 15 minutes (5.3) were similar to those after sonication (4.9) and greater than those obtaining by scraping (3.4) and treatment with 2 g/L NAC for 30 minutes (1.9). DTT and sonication showed good reproducibility. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our data suggest that treatment of prostheses with DTT may be a reasonable alternative to sonication to improve detection of biofilm-associated bacteria and supplement conventional laboratory culturing techniques for diagnosing periprosthetic infections.
BACKGROUND: Sonication and scraping of infected prostheses usually are used to improve diagnosis of prosthetic infections, reducing false negatives. Chemical methods that reduce biofilms also may allow higher levels of detection. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore asked: (1) Do dithiothreitol (DTT) and N-acetylcysteine (NAC) remove bacteria from biofilm formed on prosthetic materials? (2) Is bacterial recovery affected by differing DTT and NAC concentrations and incubation times? (3) Do treatments with DTT and NAC detach the same amounts of bacteria from biofilm on prosthetic materials as sonication and scraping? (4) Are these methods reproducible? METHODS: We treated polyethylene and titanium discs covered by biofilm formed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus with DTT or NAC solutions at different concentrations for different times. We compared colony counts of S aureus, P aeruginosa, Staphylococcus epidermidis and Escherichia coli after treatment with NAC, DTT, sonication and scraping. We determined colony counts after treatment of biofilm formed by one strain of S aureus and one of P aeruginosa on five discs of each material analyzed on the same day and on five discs analyzed on five consecutive days. RESULTS: Mean colony counts (LogCFU/mL) obtained after treatment with 1 g/L DTT for 15 minutes (5.3) were similar to those after sonication (4.9) and greater than those obtaining by scraping (3.4) and treatment with 2 g/L NAC for 30 minutes (1.9). DTT and sonication showed good reproducibility. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our data suggest that treatment of prostheses with DTT may be a reasonable alternative to sonication to improve detection of biofilm-associated bacteria and supplement conventional laboratory culturing techniques for diagnosing periprosthetic infections.
Authors: Leonora Q Schwandt; Ranny Van Weissenbruch; Ietse Stokroos; Henny C Van der Mei; Henk J Busscher; Frans W J Albers Journal: Acta Otolaryngol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 1.494
Authors: Andrej Trampuz; Kerryl E Piper; Arlen D Hanssen; Douglas R Osmon; Franklin R Cockerill; James M Steckelberg; Robin Patel Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Javad Parvizi; Benjamin Zmistowski; Elie F Berbari; Thomas W Bauer; Bryan D Springer; Craig J Della Valle; Kevin L Garvin; Michael A Mont; Montri D Wongworawat; Charalampos G Zalavras Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: G D Christensen; W A Simpson; J J Younger; L M Baddour; F F Barrett; D M Melton; E H Beachey Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 1985-12 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Andrej Trampuz; Douglas R Osmon; Arlen D Hanssen; James M Steckelberg; Robin Patel Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: M Mussa; T Manciulli; M Corbella; B Mariani; P Cambieri; N Gipsz; L Scudeller; D M Abbott; E Brunetti; M Mosconi; F Benazzo; P Orsolini Journal: Musculoskelet Surg Date: 2020-01-28
Authors: Arianna B Lovati; Lorenzo Drago; Marta Bottagisio; Matilde Bongio; Marzia Ferrario; Silvia Perego; Veronica Sansoni; Elena De Vecchi; Carlo L Romanò Journal: Mediators Inflamm Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 4.711
Authors: Alessandro Bidossi; Monica Bortolin; Marco Toscano; Elena De Vecchi; Carlo L Romanò; Roberto Mattina; Lorenzo Drago Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Madeleine C Stevenson; Julia C Slater; H Claude Sagi; Federico Palacio Bedoya; Margaret V Powers-Fletcher Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 11.677
Authors: Arianna Barbara Lovati; Carlo Luca Romanò; Marta Bottagisio; Lorenzo Monti; Elena De Vecchi; Sara Previdi; Riccardo Accetta; Lorenzo Drago Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Carlo L Romanò; Maria Teresa Trentinaglia; Elena De Vecchi; Nicola Logoluso; David A George; Ilaria Morelli; Lorenzo Drago Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2018-04-02 Impact factor: 3.090