Tunney M M, Patrick S, Curran M D, Ramage G, Hanna D, Nixon J R, Gorman S P, Davis R I, Anderson N
Department of Microbiology and Immunobiology, School of Clinical Medicine, The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast BT12 6BN, United Kingdom.
J Clin Microbiol. 1999 Oct;37(10):3281-90. doi: 10.1128/JCM.37.10.3281-3290.1999.
In this study the detection rates of bacterial infection of hip prostheses by culture and nonculture methods were compared for 120 patients with total hip revision surgery. By use of strict anaerobic bacteriological practice during the processing of samples and without enrichment, the incidence of infection by culture of material dislodged from retrieved prostheses after ultrasonication (sonicate) was 22%. Bacteria were observed by immunofluorescence microscopy in 63% of sonicate samples with a monoclonal antibody specific for Propionibacterium acnes and polyclonal antiserum specific for Staphylococcus spp. The bacteria were present either as single cells or in aggregates of up to 300 bacterial cells. These aggregates were not observed without sonication to dislodge the biofilm. Bacteria were observed in all of the culture-positive samples, and in some cases in which only one type of bacterium was identified by culture, both coccoid and coryneform bacteria were observed by immunofluorescence microscopy. Bacteria from skin-flake contamination were readily distinguishable from infecting bacteria by immunofluorescence microscopy. Examination of skin scrapings did not reveal large aggregates of bacteria but did reveal skin cells. These were not observed in the sonicates. Bacterial DNA was detected in 72% of sonicate samples by PCR amplification of a region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene with universal primers. All of the culture-positive samples were also positive for bacterial DNA. Evidence of high-level infiltration either of neutrophils or of lymphocytes or macrophages into associated tissue was observed in 73% of patients. Our results indicate that the incidence of prosthetic joint infection is grossly underestimated by current culture detection methods. It is therefore imperative that current clinical practice with regard to the detection and subsequent treatment of prosthetic joint infection be reassessed in the light of these results.
在本研究中,对120例行全髋关节翻修手术的患者,比较了通过培养和非培养方法检测髋关节假体细菌感染的发生率。在样本处理过程中采用严格的厌氧细菌学操作且不进行富集培养,超声处理(超声裂解)后从取出的假体上取下的材料培养出感染的发生率为22%。在63%的超声裂解样本中,用针对痤疮丙酸杆菌的单克隆抗体和针对葡萄球菌属的多克隆抗血清通过免疫荧光显微镜观察到细菌。细菌以单细胞形式或多达300个细菌细胞的聚集体形式存在。不进行超声处理以去除生物膜则观察不到这些聚集体。在所有培养阳性样本中均观察到细菌,在某些仅通过培养鉴定出一种细菌类型的情况下,通过免疫荧光显微镜观察到了球菌和棒状杆菌。通过免疫荧光显微镜很容易将来自皮屑污染的细菌与感染细菌区分开来。对皮肤刮屑的检查未发现大量细菌聚集体,但发现了皮肤细胞。在超声裂解物中未观察到这些细胞。通过用通用引物对细菌16S rRNA基因区域进行PCR扩增,在72%的超声裂解样本中检测到细菌DNA。所有培养阳性样本的细菌DNA也呈阳性。在73%的患者中观察到中性粒细胞、淋巴细胞或巨噬细胞大量浸润相关组织的证据。我们的结果表明,目前的培养检测方法严重低估了人工关节感染的发生率。因此,必须根据这些结果重新评估目前关于人工关节感染检测及后续治疗的临床实践。