Tissues are valuable microbiological samples that have proved superiority over swabs. Culture of tissue samples is used in the diagnosis of a variety of infections. However, as well as factors such as the site of obtaining the sample, the number of samples, and previous antibiotic use, the method of tissue processing may have an important effect on sensitivity. Data from the literature comparing different tissue processing methods is very limited. This study aimed to compare different mechanical and chemical methods of tissue processing in terms of efficacy and retaining the viability of the bacteria in the tissues. Standard suspensions of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli were prepared and treated differently to test the effect of that treatment on bacterial viability. Artificially inoculated pork tissue and known infected human tissue samples were then processed by different methods prior to culture, and results were compared. Percentages of reduction in the number of viable bacteria compared to the control by homogenization was similar to 5-min dithiothreitol treatment but significantly lower than bead beating. Bacterial recovery from homogenized human tissues was significantly higher than from any other method of treatment. Although bead beating could be the most efficient method in obtaining a homogeneous tissue product, it significantly reduces the number of viable bacteria within tissues. Homogenization offers the most effective easily controllable retrieval of bacteria from tissue and retains their viability. Guidelines for diagnosing infections using tissue samples should include a standardized processing method.
Prosthetic joint infection is usually caused by staphylococci. Among the coagulase-negative staphylococci, Staphylococcus lugdunensis is important because it behaves as a pathogen similar to S aureus. It also develops biofilms, and the biofilm phenotype can appear as small-colony variants. Although genetically indistinguishable, they differ in size and antibiotic susceptibility from the parent strain and are responsible for chronic persistent infection and failure of antibiotic treatment. They can also lead to misinterpretation of results. The patient reported here underwent total knee replacement and 2 years later presented with prosthetic joint infection. Tissue samples and prosthesis taken at revision grew S lugdunensis, the majority of which were small-colony variants. Recommendations are made for their detection and identification.
False negative culture results in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) are not uncommon particularly when patients have received long term antibiotics. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has a lower specificity partly due to detection of residual DNA from dead bacteria. Propidium monoazide (PMA) prevents DNA from dead bacteria from being amplified during the PCR. This study aimed to determine the role of PMA in PCR for diagnosis of PJI. Clinical samples were tested by PCR with and without prior treatment with PMA and compared to conventional microbiological culture. The PCR assay included genus-specific primers for staphylococci and enterococci and species-specific primers for Cutibacterium acnes. The validated conditions of PMA treatment used in this study were 20 μM concentration and 5 and 10 min of dark incubation and photo-activation respectively. 202 periprosthetic tissues and explanted prostheses from 60 episodes in 58 patients undergoing revision arthroplasties for either PJI or non-infective causes were tested, by culture, PCR, and PMA-PCR. 14 of the 60 episodes satisfied the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI and 46 did not. Sensitivity of culture, PCR, and PMA-PCR were 50%, 71%, and 79% respectively. Specificities were 98%, 72%, and 89% respectively. All figures were calculated for episodes rather than samples. PMA-PCR enhanced both the specificity and the sensitivity of PCR. It has the potential to detect residual bacterial viability prior to reimplantation in the two-stage revision for PJI.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.