Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Bacterial biofilm can occur on all medical implanted devices and lead to infection and/or dysfunction of the device. In this study, artificial biofilm was formed on four different medical implants (silicone, piccline, peripheral venous catheter and endotracheal tube) of interest for our daily clinical and/or research practice. We investigated the best conventional technic to dislodge the biofilm on the implants and quantified the number of bacteria. Staphylococcus epidermidis previously isolated from a breast implant capsular contracture on a patient in the university hospital of Dijon was selected for its ability to produce biofilm on the implants. Different technics (sonication, Digest-EUR®, mechanized bead mill, combination of sonication plus Digest-EUR®) were tested and compared to detach the biofilm before quantifying viable bacteria by colony counting.
RESULTS: For all treatments, the optical and scanning electron microscope images showed substantial less biofilm biomass remaining on the silicone implant compared to non-treated implant. This study demonstrated that the US procedure was statistically superior to the other physical treatment: beads, Digest-EUR® alone and Digest-EUR® + US (p < 0.001) for the flexible materials (picc-line, PIV, and silicone). The number of bacteria released by the US is significantly higher with a difference of 1 log on each material. The result for a rigid endotracheal tube were different with superiority for the chemical treatment dithiothreitol: Digest-EUR®. Surprisingly the combination of the US plus Digest-EUR® treatment was consistently inferior for the four materials.
CONCLUSIONS: Depending on the materials used, the biofilm dislodging technique must be adapted. The US procedure was the best technic to dislodge S. epidermidis biofilm on silicone, piccline, peripheral venous catheter but not endotracheal tube. This suggested that scientists should compare themselves different methods before designing a protocol of biofilm study on a given material.
RESULTS: For all treatments, the optical and scanning electron microscope images showed substantial less biofilm biomass remaining on the silicone implant compared to non-treated implant. This study demonstrated that the US procedure was statistically superior to the other physical treatment: beads, Digest-EUR® alone and Digest-EUR® + US (p < 0.001) for the flexible materials (picc-line, PIV, and silicone). The number of bacteria released by the US is significantly higher with a difference of 1 log on each material. The result for a rigid endotracheal tube were different with superiority for the chemical treatment dithiothreitol: Digest-EUR®. Surprisingly the combination of the US plus Digest-EUR® treatment was consistently inferior for the four materials.
CONCLUSIONS: Depending on the materials used, the biofilm dislodging technique must be adapted. The US procedure was the best technic to dislodge S. epidermidis biofilm on silicone, piccline, peripheral venous catheter but not endotracheal tube. This suggested that scientists should compare themselves different methods before designing a protocol of biofilm study on a given material.
摘要：
细菌生物膜可出现在所有医疗植入装置上,并导致装置的感染和/或功能障碍。在这项研究中,在四种不同的医疗植入物上形成人工生物膜(硅胶，piccline,外周静脉导管和气管导管）对我们的日常临床和/或研究实践感兴趣。我们研究了去除植入物上生物膜并定量细菌数量的最佳常规技术。先前从第戎大学医院的一名患者的乳房植入物包膜挛缩中分离出的表皮葡萄球菌因其能够在植入物上产生生物膜而被选择。不同的技术(超声处理，Digest-EUR®，机械化珠磨机，在通过菌落计数定量活细菌之前，对超声处理加Digest-EUR®）的组合进行测试并比较以分离生物膜。
对于所有治疗，光学和扫描电子显微镜图像显示，与未处理的植入物相比，残留在有机硅植入物上的生物膜生物量明显减少。这项研究表明，美国的手术在统计学上优于其他物理治疗：珠子，Digest-EUR®单独和Digest-EUR®+US(p<0.001)用于柔性材料(picc-line,PIV,和硅胶）。US释放的细菌数量明显更高，每种材料的差异为1log。刚性气管内导管的结果与化学处理二硫苏糖醇：Digest-EUR®的优越性不同。令人惊讶的是，美国加Digest-EUR®治疗的组合对于四种材料始终较差。
根据所使用的材料，生物膜去除技术必须适应。美国的手术是在硅胶上去除表皮葡萄球菌生物膜的最佳技术，piccline,外周静脉导管，但不是气管内导管。这表明科学家在设计给定材料的生物膜研究方案之前，应该比较不同的方法。
对于所有治疗，光学和扫描电子显微镜图像显示，与未处理的植入物相比，残留在有机硅植入物上的生物膜生物量明显减少。这项研究表明，美国的手术在统计学上优于其他物理治疗：珠子，Digest-EUR®单独和Digest-EUR®+US(p<0.001)用于柔性材料(picc-line,PIV,和硅胶）。US释放的细菌数量明显更高，每种材料的差异为1log。刚性气管内导管的结果与化学处理二硫苏糖醇：Digest-EUR®的优越性不同。令人惊讶的是，美国加Digest-EUR®治疗的组合对于四种材料始终较差。
根据所使用的材料，生物膜去除技术必须适应。美国的手术是在硅胶上去除表皮葡萄球菌生物膜的最佳技术，piccline,外周静脉导管，但不是气管内导管。这表明科学家在设计给定材料的生物膜研究方案之前，应该比较不同的方法。
