Hirn M, Laitinen M, Vuento R
Division of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Tampere, Finland.
Chir Organi Mov. 2003 Apr-Jun;88(2):149-52.
We analyzed the bacterial contamination rate of 140 femoral head allografts after rinsing the allografts in different decontamination solutions. Bacterial screening methods and cleansing effect of antibiotics (cefuroxime and rifampicin) and pulse lavage were compared. Swabbing and taking small pieces of bone for culture were the screening methods used. Both methods proved to be quite unreliable. Approximately one-fourth of the results were false negative. Culturing small pieces of bone gave the most accurate and reliable results and, therefore, can be recommended as a bacterial screening method. The use of antibiotics in allograft decontamination is controversial. In prophylactic use antibiotics include risks of allergic reactions and resistant development and our results in the present study show that antibiotics do not improve the decontamination any better than low-pressure pulse lavage with sterile saline solution. Therefore, pulse lavage with sterile saline solution can be recommended for allograft decontamination. Our results demonstrate that it decreases bacterial bioburden as effectively as the antibiotics without persisting the disadvantages.
我们分析了140例同种异体股骨头在不同去污溶液中冲洗后的细菌污染率。比较了细菌筛查方法以及抗生素(头孢呋辛和利福平)和脉冲冲洗的清洁效果。采用擦拭和取小块骨进行培养的筛查方法。这两种方法都被证明相当不可靠。大约四分之一的结果为假阴性。培养小块骨得到的结果最准确可靠,因此可推荐作为细菌筛查方法。在同种异体移植去污中使用抗生素存在争议。预防性使用抗生素存在过敏反应和耐药性发展的风险,我们在本研究中的结果表明,抗生素在去污方面并不比用无菌盐溶液进行低压脉冲冲洗效果更好。因此,推荐用无菌盐溶液进行脉冲冲洗来进行同种异体移植去污。我们的结果表明,它能像抗生素一样有效地降低细菌生物负荷,且不存在抗生素的缺点。