header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

COMPARISON OF SONICATION AND CHEMICAL METHODS FOR THE BIOFILM DETECTION, INCLUDING CHELATING AND REDUCING AGENTS

The European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) 2018 Meeting, Helsinki, Finland, September 2018.



Abstract

Aim

To compare the performance of sonication and chemical methods (EDTA and DTT) for biofilm removal from artificial surface.

Method

In vitro a mature biofilms of Staphylococcus epidermidis (ATCC 35984) and P. aeruginosa ATCC®53278) were grown on porous glass beads for 3 days in inoculated brain heart infusion broth (BHI). After biofilm formation, beads were exposed to 0.9% NaCl (control), sonication (40 kHz, 1 min, 0.2 W/cm2), EDTA (25 mM/15 min) and DTT (1 g/L/15 min). Quantitative and qualitative biofilm analysis were performed with viable counts (CFU/ml) and microcalorimetry using time to detection (TTD), defined as the time from insertion of the ampoule into the calorimeter until the exponentially rising of heat flow signal exceeded 100 μW, which is inversely proportional to the amount of remaining bacterial biofilm on the beads. All experiments were performed in triplicate.

Results

Mean colony counts obtained after treatment S. epidermidis biofilms with EDTA and DTT was similar to those after 0.9% NaCl (control) – 6.3, 6.1 and 6.0 log CFU/mL, respectively. Sonication detected significantly higher CFU counts with 7.5 log (p<0.05). Concordant results were detected with microcalorimetry: significantly less (p<0.05) biofilm after treatment with sonication compared to EDTA and DTT (12 h vs 6h and 6h, respectively). The same results were observed when P. aeruginosa biofilms were treated. Mean colony counts dislodged after treatment with EDTA and DTT was similar to those after 0.9% NaCl (control) – 5.2, 5.3 and 5.0 log CFU/mL, respectively. Sonication detected significantly higher CFU counts with 6.5 log (p<0.05). Microcalorimetry reviled concordant results: significantly less (p<0.05) biofilm after treatment with sonication in comparison with EDTA and DTT (11 h vs 6h and 6h, respectively).

Conclusions

Chemical methods showed no difference in biofilm dislodging compared to normal saline. Sonication is superior to chemical methods (DTT or EDTA) for biofilm detection. Sonication may be improved by combination of two or more chemical dislodgement methods.


Email: