Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Swab or biopsy samples for bioburden testing of allograft musculoskeletal tissue?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Cell and Tissue Banking Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Swab and biopsy samples of allograft musculoskeletal tissue are most commonly collected by tissue banks for bacterial and fungal bioburden testing. An in vitro study was performed using the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards standard ‘Quality control of microbiological transport systems’ (2003) to validate and evaluate the recovery of six challenge organisms from swab and biopsy samples of allograft musculoskeletal tissue. On average, 8.4 to >100 and 7.2 to >100 % of the inoculum was recovered from swab and biopsy samples respectively. A retrospective review of donor episodes was also performed, consisting of paired swab and biopsy samples received in this laboratory during the period 2001–2012. Samples of allograft femoral heads were collected from living donors during hip operations. From the 3,859 donor episodes received, 21 paired swab and biopsy samples each recovered an isolate, 247 swab samples only and 79 biopsy samples only were culture positive. Low numbers of challenge organisms were recovered from inoculated swab and biopsy samples in the in vitro study and validated their use for bioburden testing of allograft musculoskeletal tissue. Skin commensals were the most common group of organisms isolated during a 12-year retrospective review of paired swab and biopsy samples from living donor allograft femoral heads. Paired swab and biopsy samples are a suitable representative sample of allograft musculoskeletal tissue for bioburden testing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Standards Australia. AS EN 1174.2-2002 Sterilization of medical devices—estimation of the population of microorganism on product. Part 2: guidance p 19

  • Barber S, Lawson PJ, Grove DI (1998) Evaluation of bacteriological transport swabs. Pathology 30:179–182

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baron EJ, Thomson RB Jr (2011) Specimen collection, transport and processing: bacteriology. In: Versalovic J, Carroll KC, Funke G, Jorgensen JH, Landry ML, Warnock DW (eds) Manual of clinical microbiology, 10th edn. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, pp 228–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Biotherapeutics Association of Australasia (BAA) formerly Australasian Tissue Biotherapeutics Forum (ATBF) (2012) Donor questionnaire, ver. 06. BAA Executive. http://www.atbf.org.au/members/. Accessed 9 Feb 2014

  • Bjerkan G, Witsø E, Nor A, Viset T, Løseth K, Lydersen S, Persen L, Bergh K (2012) A comprehensive microbiological evaluation of fifty-four patients undergoing revision surgery due to prosthetic joint loosening. J Med Microbiol 61:572–581

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bornside GH, Bornside BB (1979) Comparison between moist swab and tissue biopsy methods for quantitation of bacteria in experimental incisional wounds. J Trauma 19(2):103–105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • British Pharmacopoeia Commission (2013) British pharmacopoeia volume 5 appendix XVI A. Sterility, London

    Google Scholar 

  • CDC: Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (1996) Ochrobactrium anthropi meningitis associated with cadaveric pericardial tissue processed with a contaminated solution—Utah 1994. MMWR 45:671–673

    Google Scholar 

  • Chua JD, Abdul-Karim A, Mawhorter S, Procop GW, Tchou P, Niebauer M, Saliba W, Schweikert R, Wilkoff BL (2005) The role of swab and tissue culture in the diagnosis of implantable cardiac device infection. PACE 28:1276–1281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies CE, Hill KE, Newcombe RG et al (2006) A prospective study of the microbiology of chronic venous leg ulcers to re-evaluate the clinical predictive value of tissue biopsies and swabs. Wound Repair Regen 15:17–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis JA, Martinez OV, Landy DC, Malinin TI, Morris PR, Fox WP, Buck BE, Temple HT (2011) A comparison of two microbial detection methods used in aseptic processing of musculoskeletal allograft tissues. Cell Tissue Bank 12:45–50. doi:10.1007/s10561-009-9158-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Farrington M, Matthews I, Foreman J, Caffrey E (1996) Bone graft contamination from a water de-ionizer during processing in a bone bank. J Hosp Infect 32:61–64

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gjødsbøl K, Skindersoe ME, Christensen JJ, Karlsmark T, Jørgensen B, Jensun AM, Klein BM, Sonnested MK, Krogfelt KA (2012) No need for biopsies: comparison of three sample techniques for wound microbiota determination. Int Wound J 9(3):295–302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hindiyeh M, Acevedo V, Carroll KC (2001) Comparison of three transport systems (Starples Starswab II, the new Copan Vi-Pak Amies agar gel collection and transport swabs, and BBL Port-A-Cul) for maintenance of anaerobic and fastidious aerobic organisms. J Clin Microbiol 39:377–380

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levine NS, Lindberg RB, Mason AD, Pruitt BA (1976) The quantitative swab culture and smear: a quick simple method for determining the number of viable aerobic bacteria on open wounds. J Trauma 16(2):89–94

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morosini M, Loza E, Gutierrez O, Almaraz F, Baquero F, Canton R (2006) Evaluation of 4 swab transport systems for the recovery of ATCC and clinical strains with characterized resistance mechanisms. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 56:19–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • NCCLS (The National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards) 2003 Quality Control of Microbiological Transport Systems. Approved Standard. NCCLS document M40-A [ISBN 1-56238-520-8]. NCCLS, Wayne, Pennsylvania USA

  • Nys S, Vijgen S, Magerman K, Cartuyvels R (2010) Comparison of Copan eSwab with the Copan Venturi transystem for the quantitative survival of Escherichia coli, Streptococcus agalactiae and Candida albicans. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 29:453–456

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perry JL (1997) Assessment of swab transport systems for aerobic and anaerobic organism recovery. J Clin Microbiol 35:1269–1271

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ronholdt CJ, Bogdansky S (2005) The appropriateness of swab cultures for the release of human allograft tissue. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 32:349–354

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saegeman VSM, Lismont D, Verduyckt B, Ectors NL, Verhaegen J (2007) Comparison of microbiological culture methods in screening allograft tissue. Swab versus nutrient broth. J Microbiol Methods 10:374–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommerville SMM, Johnson N, Bryce SL, Journeaux SF, Morgan DAF (2000) Contamination of banked femoral head allograft: incidence, bacteriology and donor follow up. ANZ J Surg 70:480–484

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Therapeutic Goods Administration (2006) Guidelines for sterility testing of therapeutic goods. Department of Health and Aging, Canberra Australia

  • Therapeutic Goods Administration (2011) Therapeutic Goods Order No. 83. Standards for human musculoskeletal tissue Department of Health and Aging, Canberra Australia

  • Van Horn KG, Audette CD, Sebeck D, Tucker KA (2008) Comparison of the Copan Eswab system with two Amies agar swab transport systems for maintenance of microorganism viability. J Clin Microbiol 46(5):1655–1658

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Varettas K (2012) Bacteriology laboratories and musculoskeletal tissue banks in Australia. ANZ J Surg 82:775–779. doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2012.06145.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Varettas K (2013) Broth vs solid agar culture of swab samples of cadaveric allograft musculoskeletal tissue. Cell Tissue Banking 14:627–631. doi:10.1007/s10561-013-9365-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Varettas K, Taylor PC (2011) Bioburden assessment of banked bone used for allografts. Cell Tissue Bank 12:37–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Veen MR, Bloem RM, Petit PL (1994) Sensitivity and negative predictive value of swab cultures in musculoskeletal allograft procurement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 300:259–263

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vehmeyer SBW, Slooff ARM, Bloem RM, Petits PLC (2002) Bacterial contamination of femoral head allografts from living donors. Acta Orthop Scand 73(2):165–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zeller V, Ghorbani A, Strady C, Leonard P, Mamoudy P, Desplaces N (2007) Propionibacterium acnes: an agent of prosthetic joint infection and colonization. J Infect 55:119–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. South Eastern Area Laboratory Services, Microbiology Department, CSB Level 3, St George Hospital, Sydney, Gray St., Kogarah, Sydney, NSW, 2217, Australia

    Kerry Varettas

Authors
  1. Kerry Varettas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kerry Varettas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Varettas, K. Swab or biopsy samples for bioburden testing of allograft musculoskeletal tissue?. Cell Tissue Bank 15, 613–618 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10561-014-9435-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10561-014-9435-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation