The risk of biomaterial-associated infection after revision surgery due to an experimental primary implant infection

Anton F. Engelsman, Isabel C. Saldarriaga-Fernandez, M. Reza Nejadnik, Gooitzen M. van Dam, Kevin P. Francis, Rutger J. Ploeg, Henk J. Busscher, Henny C. van der Mei*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The fate of secondary biomaterial implants was determined by bio-optical imaging and plate counting, after antibiotic treatment of biomaterials-associated-infection (BAI) and surgical removal of an experimentally infected, primary implant. All primary implants and tissue samples from control mice showed bioluminescence and were culture-positive. In an antibiotic treated group, no bioluminescence was detected and only 20% of all primary implants and no tissue samples were culture-positive. After revision surgery, bioluminescence was detected in all control mice. All the implants and 80% of all tissue samples were culture-positive. In contrast, in the antibiotic treated group, 17% of all secondary implants and 33% of all tissue samples were culture-positive, despite antibiotic treatment. The study illustrates that due to the BAI of a primary implant, the infection risk of biomaterial implants is higher in revision surgery than in primary surgery, emphasizing the need for full clearance of the infection, as well as from surrounding tissues prior to implantation of a secondary implant.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)761-767
Number of pages7
JournalBiofouling
Volume26
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Keywords

  • Staphylococcus aureus
  • bioluminescence
  • in vivo
  • vancomycin
  • rifampicin
  • bio-optical imaging
  • STAPHYLOCOCCUS-EPIDERMIDIS
  • BIOFILM INFECTION
  • IN-VIVO
  • MOUSE MODEL
  • ANTIBIOTICS
  • TISSUE
  • MICE
  • VANCOMYCIN
  • RESISTANCE
  • JOINT

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The risk of biomaterial-associated infection after revision surgery due to an experimental primary implant infection'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this