Bacterial DNA from orthopaedic implants after routine removal
-
chair:
Obst, U. / Marten, S. / Niessner, C. / Hartwig, E. (2011)
-
place:
Int J Artif Organs 34 (2011), 9, 856-62
- Date: 2011
-
Obst, U. / Marten, S. / Niessner, C. / Hartwig, E. (2011): „Bacterial DNA from orthopaedic implants after routine removal“. In: Int J Artif Organs 34 (2011), 9, 856-62
Abstract
Bacterial 16S rDNA was monitored and identified from orthopedic metallic implants after routine or septic removal from patients in a German hospital. From March to June 2009, 28 metallic implants, 10 human biopsies, and 6 foam dressings from 28 patients were investigated. After analysis of this first collective, the methods were optimized to enhance sensitivity and to reduce interference with human DNA. Then a second collective consisting of 21 metallic implants from 21 patients was investigated from June 2009 to January 2010.
In the first collective, 71% of the metallic implants were negative for eubacterial DNA. Pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus and opportunists such as Lactobacillus rhamnosus were identified in 11% of the samples, whereas the residual 18% positive results were classified as from skin sources or could not be confirmed. Tissue, secretion, and bone samples as well as foam dressings from the same collective also contained pathogens and opportunists.
After the optimization of the methods, a considerable increase of positive samples was seen: in the second collective 19 of the 21 metallic implants proved to be positive for eubacterial 16S rDNA. Bacterial DNA from environmental sources was detected in 13 samples, and in 20 specimens, predominantly mostly the skin. Opportunistic pathogens were detected in 19 samples.
Interestingly, septic complications did not occur despite the presence of bacterial DNA. The results obtained up to now encourage us not only to continue a directed monitoring of bacterial DNA on orthopedic implants in practice but also to look intensely for possible sources of bacterial contamination during and after insertion or during removal of such implants.
In the first collective, 71% of the metallic implants were negative for eubacterial DNA. Pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus and opportunists such as Lactobacillus rhamnosus were identified in 11% of the samples, whereas the residual 18% positive results were classified as from skin sources or could not be confirmed. Tissue, secretion, and bone samples as well as foam dressings from the same collective also contained pathogens and opportunists.
After the optimization of the methods, a considerable increase of positive samples was seen: in the second collective 19 of the 21 metallic implants proved to be positive for eubacterial 16S rDNA. Bacterial DNA from environmental sources was detected in 13 samples, and in 20 specimens, predominantly mostly the skin. Opportunistic pathogens were detected in 19 samples.
Interestingly, septic complications did not occur despite the presence of bacterial DNA. The results obtained up to now encourage us not only to continue a directed monitoring of bacterial DNA on orthopedic implants in practice but also to look intensely for possible sources of bacterial contamination during and after insertion or during removal of such implants.